beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,500,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 3, 2014 to December 21, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 10, 2012, the Plaintiff did not have a face face as it does not have a good face, and paid KRW 3,500,000 to the Defendant on December 10, 2012, when the Defendant was under management of the crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym.
B. On December 10, 2012, the Defendant first-time, 100% of the 100% procedure by strong methods with deep and broad chests, and the Defendant started treatment by explaining that the 10% procedure is conducted once a month by at least 10% per month and at least 5% per month after the final procedure is conducted by waiting for the skin regeneration procedure for at least six months after the final procedure.
However, on December 10, 2012, the Defendant closed the hospital on January 8, 2013 after the treatment of 15% once on December 1, 201.
C. The Defendant’s practice on January 25, 2013 (15%)
3.1. On March 1, 2013, the hospital closed the operation, and 45% of the total operation was conducted on two occasions, and no longer conducted the operation, and the Plaintiff was waiting for six months or one year for the skin recycling period.
The plaintiff seems to have wide scarcitys in part of the part of the procedure currently conducted, and there are over-explosion.
[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, and 13, Eul evidence Nos. 16-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7,
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Defendant was unable to properly perform the rashing procedure and was suffering from post-marbation, such as an anti-scambals, which constitutes a tort by negligence by the Defendant’s treatment.
B. The defendant could have sufficiently predicted as a doctor that, if the plaintiff is unable to undergo the procedure and the skin management, serious injury to face would remain. If the defendant closes the hospital due to unavoidable reasons, he/she may seek the patient's understanding as to this point and seek treatment without interruption.