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

During the period from September 16, 200 to April 17, 2009, the plaintiff applied from time to time to time for treatment of symptoms, such as dynasty infection, and the defendant provided treatment for the plaintiff to eliminate part of the plaintiff's dynasium as shown in the attached Table 'the medical records' against the plaintiff during the above period, it is not disputed between the parties or acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the arguments as a whole.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant deleted the plaintiff's infant excessively beyond the necessary degree in the course of treating the plaintiff's baby and suffered injury, such as the plaintiff's misappropriation, bad faith disorder, etc. The result is that the defendant's act occurred while performing a wrong procedure contrary to the medical principles, and therefore, the defendant's act constitutes a tort. The defendant has a duty to compensate all damages suffered by the plaintiff.

B. Determination

(1) In order to hold a patient liable for tort due to a medical doctor’s breach of duty of care in medical practice, the occurrence of damages, and the causal relationship between them should be proved, respectively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61402, Sept. 28, 2006). In light of the special nature of medical practice, in a case where a patient suffered damages in the course of receiving medical treatment, the patient had medical negligence in the course of a series of medical practice and did not have any other cause between the act and the occurrence of damages, first of all, the causal relationship between the medical practice and the occurrence of damages may be acknowledged only when the patient proves from the patient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da62505, Sept. 28, 2006).

(2) First, in order to recognize a violation of the duty of care, the defendant's act of removing part of the plaintiff's infant, in light of the medical principles, the plaintiff's act of removing part of the plaintiff's infant shall be proved by the plaintiff's medical negligence in violation of the duty of care by eliminating the plaintiff's infant beyond the appropriate scope, and the defendant's act of removing the plaintiff's infant beyond the proper scope of the medical principles. The defendant's act of removing part of the plaintiff's infant's infant is recognized as mentioned above. However, in light of the medical principles, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's act of removing the plaintiff's infant beyond the proper scope of the medical principles, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's act of violation of the duty of care.

(3) In addition, in full view of the statement No. 3-1 to 3 of the evidence No. 3 and the purport of the entire argument as a result of physical examination on the director of the Busan National University Hospital, the plaintiff is recognized as having shown symptoms of malicious disorder accompanied by a pain in the total unstable situation. However, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that there was no other cause except the defendant's treatment act as to the above symptoms caused to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's violation of the defendant's duty of care cannot be recognized as having causation between the defendant's act and the plaintiff's damage.

(4) Therefore, one mother or the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.