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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

On October 2013, the Plaintiff visited the “C Hanwon” of the Defendant’s operation and received her therapy from the Defendant. From February 2014, the Plaintiff used herb drugs prescribed by the Defendant, while taking medicine.

However, even though the defendant agreed to improve the plaintiff through the above treatment, the defendant did not suffer from the plaintiff's disease at all.

Ultimately, the Defendant, as seen above, deceiving the Plaintiff and deprived the Plaintiff of the opportunity to receive medical treatment at other places, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 10,000,000, KRW 5,000,000, and delay damages therefrom.

2. Determination: (a) The obligation owed by a physician to a patient is not a obligation as a result of the performance of the same result as the cure of a disease, but a obligation to take necessary and appropriate medical measures in light of the current medical level with the duty of due care of a good manager for the treatment of a patient; and (b) thus, it cannot be presumed that the performance of the obligation for medical treatment was performed immediately with the result of medical treatment

(See Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1491 delivered on December 13, 198). Even if the Plaintiff’s disease was not cured through the Defendant’s herb prescription and healing treatment, as alleged by the Plaintiff, such circumstance alone is difficult to recognize that the Defendant committed any tort or default on duty, and there is no evidence suggesting that the Defendant failed to take necessary and appropriate medical measures in light of the current medical level with the duty of due care as a good manager to recover the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.