1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from April 28, 2017 to October 19, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 22, 2016, the Plaintiff received the Plaintiff’s incancy and artificial insemination incancy (hereinafter “instant surgery”) from the Defendant’s “Canium (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”)” as to the Plaintiff’s incancy.

B. Since December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff received a telebry operation from the Dananan department, but on August 2, 2017, the Plaintiff was in the state of 0.02 with the maximum corrected visual power of 0.02, and was at Grade 6 of the visual disability of August 22, 2017.

C. In relation to the instant surgery, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for criminal facts, such as occupational injury, violation of the Medical Service Act, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of a falsified document, but was subject to disposition on May 29, 2018 as to the injury by occupational negligence and the aiding and abetting of Private Documents.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 9 and 10, the result of the court’s commission of physical examination to the director of the Seoul Scare University, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff could not conduct the instant surgery even if the Defendant could not perform the instant surgery in a situation where the Plaintiff’s condition was examined before the instant surgery, but did not perform the instant surgery in a state where the Plaintiff could not know. The Plaintiff breached its duty of care by performing the instant surgery in a state where the condition of the network is unknown.

During the instant surgery, an artificial insemination inserted in artificial insemination was caused by excessive manipulation.

After the instant surgery, the Plaintiff, from November 28, 2016 to December 14, 2016, appealed to the Defendant four times from the date of the instant surgery, but took all measures on December 14, 2016, even though the Plaintiff appealed to the Defendant for the pains and Identifications.

Furthermore, the Defendant violated the duty to explain to the Plaintiff by failing to explain the status of the Plaintiff’s friendship before the instant surgery, the side effects and symptoms that may arise during the instant surgery, and the network gambling, etc. that occurred after the instant surgery.

Therefore, the defendant violated the above duty of care to the plaintiff.