A. The Defendant is a dentist who operates a dental hospital and a hospital.

B. The Plaintiff visited the hospital on May 12, 2016, 2016, when she saw that inconvenience was likely to arise to the 2nd heading on the part of the 1st century (hereinafter referred to as “the 25th heading”). (c) The Defendant found the Plaintiff’s 1stal part of the 1stal part of the 1stal part of the 1stal part of the 1stal part of the 1stal part of the 26thal part of the 26thal part of the 201stal part of the 1stal part of the 201stal part of the 201stal part of the 1stal part of the 1stal part of the 1stal part of the 20

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Eul 1, Eul 2 (including ad hoc number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the party's assertion 1) The plaintiff 25 knew that the plaintiff visited the defendant's hospital, and that he was aware that the plaintiff visited the defendant's hospital. Even if the plaintiff's 26th stepping of the infant was necessary, the plaintiff did not need immediate stepping, but did not properly explain to the plaintiff about the necessity of stepping 26, thereby causing mental distress, so the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 20 million to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant explained to the plaintiff about the situation and the necessity of stepping about the baby 26.

B. In general, a doctor of the first general legal doctrine generally deems that it is reasonable in light of the current medical level in light of the symptoms of a disease, treatment method and necessity, risk expected to occur, etc., on the premise that an emergency patient is engaged in a medical act that is likely to occur as a result of an adverse result, and that a patient is required to obtain consent to an obligation under a medical contract or an intrusion, etc., unless there is any other special circumstance.