1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 3, 2011, the Plaintiff was born to C Hospital on the same day, including symptoms, such as Hui Mari Mari Dol, Yang Dog, and Dog-do not have been able to carry on a bridge.

On August 4, 2011, the medical personnel of the above hospital conducted the MRI test on the MRI test, and recommended the Plaintiff to conduct the cryp disc surgery.

B. On August 9, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) went to a hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) for further diagnosis; (b) explained that the Plaintiff’s medical personnel of the Defendant hospital did not have the power on the left bridge; and (c) was unable to carry with the Defendant’s medical personnel so that the symptoms are worse every day for five days after they go beyond the limit.

The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital diagnosed the Plaintiff’s sick name as a nephal ppuri disease and a vertebral flapsye, accompanied by heropic disease and heropic disease, based on the following results: (a) the lephical escape certificate of 4-5, 5-6 of the Gyeong, and the opinion of compromise flas

C. On August 10, 201, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed the Plaintiff’s cirratization and artificial disc cirratization on the 4-5, and 5-6 around August 10, 201. On the following day, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed the ciratization and artificial disc ciratization on August 11, 201.

(hereinafter referred to as "the instant surgery") D.

On August 29, 2011, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Defendant Hospital.

After that, the Plaintiff received hospitalized treatment at the E hospital due to the funeral flag between August 29, 201 and September 6, 2011. From October 1, 2011 to September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff received respectively hospitalized treatment at the F hospital, G hospital, and H hospital due to symptoms of the damage of the number of flags, the detailed unknown blags, the functional disorder, etc. of the psychotropic light (hereinafter “instant disability”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that there was no special problem on pedestrian traffic before the surgery of this case, and there was no symptoms related to the disability of this case except for the protruding escape card.

However, the plaintiff on 2011.