1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except where the judgment of the plaintiff's new assertion is added in the subsequent paragraph, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with

제1심판결 4쪽 17째 줄 “항경련제를 투약하지 않았다”를 “항경련제를 투여하지 않았고 원고의 계속적인 혈압 하강에도 승압제(昇壓劑)를 투여하지 않았다”로 고친다.

The following shall be added to the seventh below the first instance judgment:

【As seen earlier, it appears that the Defendant was the top priority to resolve the Plaintiff’s respiratory part at the time of performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation as seen earlier, and it appears that the appraiser in the relevant criminal case shows the risk factor and continues to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a way that is adequate when the blood pressure is lowered. In this case, considering the fact that the oxygen level shows the risk factor in the instant case, and that the Defendant’s implementation of immediately cardiopulmonary resuscitation is an appropriate treatment method (Evidence 4), it is difficult to view that the Defendant had administered the cardiopulmonary resuscitation prior to the implementation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The following is added to the 10th 7th 7th following the judgment of the first instance.

【Plaintiff asserted that G, who is not the Defendant but the Defendant’s employee, explained the side effects of anesthesia, etc., but according to the evidence Nos. 3 and 13, the Defendant’s explanation is acknowledged.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant has administered a drug different from the medical examination and treatment record, such as a different kind of anesthesia, or that there is a negligence of administering a drug different from the medical examination and treatment record.

However, evidence Nos. 6, 7, 9, and 17, evidence No. 3, and evidence No. 3 of the first instance court's branch of Seoul National University Hospital may be recognized by considering the overall purport of arguments.