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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff visited the Sung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 5th floor space (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) located in the Defendant’s fiveth floor in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building to receive counseling on the crocec surgery. On February 8, 2014, the Plaintiff received coconculous surgery from the Defendant using coconcule and pule under the State anesthesia.

(hereinafter “instant sex surgery”). B.

원고는 2014. 9. 16. 피고 병원을 방문하여 ‘코끝은 좁고 높아져 예쁘고 좋으나 콧대가 약간 휜 것 같다’고 하며 수술비 환불을 요구하였고, 피고는 이를 거부하였다.

C. On October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a written opinion stating that “the Plaintiff visited the E-type department located in the five story of the building in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant opinion”) and “the Plaintiff is a patient who received cmelting six months prior to the six-month period, and is at the right side of the universal substance as of the present time, and the formation of the Bo-type book is at the end of the frame, or at the point of view of the dunes, and is in need of re-operation as a patient who appears to be in the mouth or in the mouth (hereinafter “instant opinion”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) did not seem to have been showing the plaintiff's disease before the sex surgery of this case. However, after the sex surgery of this case, the plaintiff appeared to have been faced with the plaintiff's disease, and the situation where the plaintiff's actual container in coaches move on the left left and left left, was caused by the defendant's medical malpractice which performed the sex surgery of this case.

(2) After the sex surgery in this case, the Defendant did not fully explain the risk and side effects, etc. that he may have displayed his noses after the sex surgery in this case. This led to the Plaintiff to undergo the sex surgery without properly recognizing the side effects, etc. of the sex surgery in this case.

(3) Therefore, the defendant is responsible for medical malpractice and negligence to the plaintiff.