1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. On the ancillary claim that was added at the trial after remand, the Defendant shall be the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant, other than the Plaintiff’s assertion medical personnel, suffered injury under the real name of the Plaintiff’s left side by failing to perform his/her duty of care while performing Boxop injection or call halog injection operations on the Plaintiff’s face.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,398,160 (i.e., 398,160 consolation money of KRW 30,000) and damages for delay thereof. The Plaintiff primarily seeks payment of the said money as compensation for injury inflicted on the Plaintiff due to the Boxan injection, and as compensation for injury inflicted on the Plaintiff due to the halog injection.

B. Although the defendant alleged that he was the defendant to be in charge of the Stockholm around the plaintiff's entrance, there is no causation between the defendant's procedure and the real name of the plaintiff.

2. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff received treatment from the Defendant on April 1, 2015, and appeared to have the symptoms showing a decline in the eyesight of the left eye, and received treatment at the Incheon National University Busan National University Hospital on April 2, 2015.

At the time of the examination and treatment, the Plaintiff stated that the face was affected by a sudden halog injection, and the doctor in charge diagnosed that the Plaintiff’s left eye was diagnosed to have caused the Plaintiff’s symptoms of climatic scullarc closure and sclisome’s sclimatic symptoms

On March 23, 2015, prior to the Defendant’s treatment, the Plaintiff’s left visual vision was 0.8; however, on April 2, 2015, immediately after the Defendant’s treatment, the Plaintiff’s left visual vision was 0.04, and on June 16, 2015, the Defendant’s left visual vision was 0.02.

On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff received a disability diagnosis that the Plaintiff’s left side falls under the real name of light.

C. The above 2-A

With respect to the procedure described in the port, the defendant shall be on July 21, 2015.