All appeals and supplementary appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal and supplementary appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal and the grounds of incidental appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of incidental incidental appeal No. 1 of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s medical personnel erred by neglecting to observe the state of Defendant B in mind or by failing to perform other additional nutrition supplement despite the suspension of the medication, which was already supplied to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) from November 3, 2008, and that the Plaintiff’s medical personnel erred by failing to perform other additional nutrition supplement, which led to the negligence that neglected to supplement nutrition and Defendant B’s abnormal symptoms from the new wall from November 6, 2008 to 16:00 on the same day on which the Defendant B did not have broken away due to dysa, with due care, and by neglecting to conduct the blood transfusion test, thereby making it reasonable to deem the Plaintiff’s medical personnel’s above erroneous judgment that the Plaintiff’s medical personnel caused a low blood transfusion of this case to the Defendant B, and that the present state of disability occurred.

Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.

There is no error of law such as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the causal relationship with the liability for medical negligence, violation of reasons,

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal and the Plaintiff’s ground of incidental appeal No. 2, the lower court, based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s liability as to the instant low-blood infection is considered: (b) prior to the occurrence of the instant low-blood infection, Defendant B had been hospitalized in the hospital from time to time due to the overall breadrosis, left-hand side fladial disorder, old-hand side fladial disorder, blood transfusion, chilling, and chilling infection, etc.; and (c) appears to have been provided with care by Defendant C.