1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a medical specialist in sexual surgery who operates a DNA sexual surgery located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “Defendant Council member”).

B. On May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff was provided with breast-child counseling with the Defendant’s member, and on May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff was provided with breast-feeding surgery (hereinafter “the instant surgery”).

C. On December 11, 2018, the Plaintiff was issued with a statement of opinion that there was an opinion of construction of 2-3 prone structures in both sides of the e-marctic surgery. On December 19, 2018, the Plaintiff received an extension and re-operation at the above hospital.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant sought damages of KRW 21,50,000 (affirmative damages of KRW 16,500,000,000,000,000) on the grounds of medical malpractice and violation of the duty to explain as follows. A.

In order to prevent the construction of a Gu type, the defendant is responsible for treating antibiotics before and after the surgery, and the defendant is responsible for performing management of sacrines, side species, etc. to prevent the construction of a Gu type after the surgery, and for faithfully providing medical care guidance. However, the defendant is negligent in issuing 2-3 old type construction on both sides, which are the parts of the surgery, by failing to fulfill his/her obligation to provide medical care guidance.

B. The Defendant violated the duty to explain to the Plaintiff prior to the surgery, which did not explain the possibility of a testamentary gift such as the construction of a Gu type due to an extended surgery, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination regarding the surgery.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s medical negligence was proven, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, in light of the facts acknowledged prior to the medical negligence, as well as the written evidence as set forth in the Evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and No. 1 through 3.

The plaintiff is before and after surgery.