손해배상(의)
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, KRW 4,500,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto are from May 3, 2014 to February 9, 2018.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 10, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) had the face of a crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cry
B. On December 10, 2012, the Defendant, at the first time, practices once more than 100% in a strong way with a deep and broad chest, and the Defendant, at least 10% per month, has been conducted at least 5 times per month, and provided explanation to the Plaintiff that the procedure was conducted by a method waiting for the recovery of skin for at least six months after the final procedure.
However, the Defendant, on December 10, 2012, closed the instant hospital on January 8, 2013 after the Defendant took 15% each time.
C. Since January 25, 2013 (15%) and March 1, 2013, the Defendant additionally performed the instant hospital. On March 1, 2013, the Defendant 45% of the total procedure was conducted on two occasions, and the Defendant should no longer conduct the procedure, and the Plaintiff is waiting for six months or one year for the reproductive period.
At present, the Plaintiff appears to have a scarcity in part of the part of the instant procedure, and there remains an over-explosion.
[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of a dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 11, and 16 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the examination by the court of first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the examination by the court of first instance on each request for physical examination to the president of the Jeonnam University Hospital at the former High Court
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Defendant was unable to properly perform the instant procedure and was suffering from post-explication, such as an anti-scambris, etc. This constitutes a tort by negligence committed by the Defendant in the instant procedure.
B. The defendant, as a doctor, is to perform and avoid the rash procedure since four times.