2...

A. On March 25, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff received a procedure to injecting Botoxa on the fourth floor of the building located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan, using a disposable injection device from the Defendant, who is not a medical personnel, to the face.

B. On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff, on April 1, 2015, was under the Stockholm procedure (hereinafter “instant procedure”), resulting in the symptoms undermining the eyesight of the left eye of the instant procedure, and subsequently, sought to leave the Indones Busan Hospital on the following day.

At the time, the diagnosis of the Plaintiff’s seat was rendered, and the correction trial record was 0.04.

C. On July 21, 2015, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million by Busan District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 201Da9521, and the said summary order became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the fact-finding results of the fact-finding on the artificial university Busan Hospital at the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant alleged the Plaintiff’s act of medical practice without a license at the time of the instant procedure and caused the Plaintiff’s loss of the Plaintiff’s left eye by negligence in breach of the duty of care.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30,398,160, the sum of KRW 398,160, and KRW 30,000,00, and the delay damages.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s liability for damages caused the instant medical procedure to the Plaintiff without a qualification or license, and comprehensively taking account of the evidence as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 5, the following facts: (i) there was no physical physical cause or any abnormal cause to cause the Plaintiff to close an island to the left part of the instant medical procedure; (ii) there was symptoms undermining the eyesight of the left part immediately after the Plaintiff received the instant medical procedure; and (iii) there was no additional procedure on the part of the inner part to the real name of the left part of the instant medical procedure until the real name.