A. The Plaintiff is a medical specialist in scarcity who operates the Dromatic surgery in the 7th floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building.

B. On October 4, 2010, the Defendant received treatment from the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s clinic from the Plaintiff’s clinic of the DNA surgery, “inclusion of a scinary scinary scinary substance inserted from the Plaintiff to the lower scinary.”

(hereinafter referred to as “first operation”). (c)

On October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff returned medical expenses when the Defendant displayed complaints regarding the result of the first operation, and performed an operation to remove a substitute product on October 14, 2010

hereinafter referred to as "re-operation"

(i) [In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 2]

2. As to the part on confirmation of existence of the principal lawsuit and the claim for counterclaim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) carried out the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant. After one week, the Defendant raised a complaint that the result of the surgery does not appear in his mind, and demanded the removal of the remains. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the surgery fees to the Defendant and performed the removal of the remains.

However, the defendant asserts that the defendant suffered serious inconvenience due to the plaintiff's negligence after one year, and demanded compensation for damages. Since there was no medical negligence in the course of the plaintiff's two surgery with respect to the defendant, and the defendant suffered damage therefrom, the defendant must confirm the non-existence of the plaintiff's liability for compensation for damages against the defendant. Even if such negligence is recognized, since the defendant entered into an agreement to waive all rights of the plaintiff in relation to the plaintiff's surgery at the time of re-operation, the defendant's right of compensation for damages does not exist and the defendant's counterclaim claim is unlawful because it violates

(2) After undergoing the first operation from the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff by ascertaining that the upper part of the upper part was defective, and the Plaintiff acknowledged his own negligence, and the existing structures of the lower part.