A. The Plaintiff is a doctor who operates a dental hospital with the trade name of “Dental clinic” on the 3rd floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. From May 2, 2012 to May 14, 2012, the Defendant received from the Plaintiff’s hospital treatment for the treatment of euthanasia from the Plaintiff to the 2 Daegu (No. 47; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the right-hand bad music.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment of the parties (the principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed the same).

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to compensate for property damage and consolation money, etc. such as expenses for spawn treatment and expenses for future treatment, etc., on the ground that the plaintiff's spawnosis in the course of treating anesthesia or in the course of treating anesthesia itself or after injecting anesthesia, or the defendant's appeal for pains caused by the spawnosis, etc., without taking any particular measures.

B. Determination 1) Medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is extremely difficult for a general person, who is not an expert, to clarify whether he/she has breached his/her duty of care in the medical process or whether there exists causation between a doctor’s breach of duty of care and the occurrence of losses. Therefore, it is also possible to presume that the symptoms occur when there is symptoms causing a serious result to a patient after an operation, by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to deem that there is any other reason than medical negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da66328, Jul. 7, 2000). However, even in such case, there is no possibility to presume the occurrence of a result due to a doctor’s negligence.