A. The Defendant is a physician operating the “C Council member,” and the Plaintiff is a person who undergoes the “humbrow surgery” and “humbrow surgery” (hereinafter “the instant surgery”) as seen below from the Defendant.

B. On August 11, 2014, the Plaintiff was consulted with the Defendant’s Council member about the increase in the eye, and received the instant surgery 4 p.m. on the same day. The Defendant, while performing the eyebrow surgery, performed the eyebrow surgery with the highest width of the eyebrowd part at 7m from the Plaintiff’s eyebrow below the eyebrow, and combined with the Defendant’s eyed part of the eyed part of the eyed part of the eyed part of the eyed part of the eyed part of the eyed part of the eyed part of the body, using approximately 2m of the eyed part of the bodyd part of the bodyd part of the bodyd part of the bodyd part of the bodyd part of the bodyd part of the bodyd part of the body.

C. On August 23, 2014, the Plaintiff complained of that snow was seriously affected by shock and shock blood, and received treatment from the Danan E Hospital to March 6, 2015 due to exposure angle, erogena, erogena, etc., from around that time. On March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Fa Hospital to the Fa Hospital, and received treatment, etc. from around that time until September 7, 2017.

At present, both sides of the Plaintiff (in a state where snow is not well-founded; about 1m on the right side, about 1.5m on the left side). The Plaintiff is suffering from an inner fluoring, paining, relicing, gradation of snow water, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9 through 12, 16, 17, 22, and 24 (including the number of branches), the result of the request for the appraisal of medical records to the G hospital head of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Whether a medical act is a field requiring high level of expertise in medical practice due to negligence in surgery, and whether a general person, who is not an expert, has breached his/her duty of care in the medical process of a doctor.