1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. In fact, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant the e-type E-type surgery and the te-type surgery (the surgery expanding the length of snow by expanding the outer side of the eye) on February 13, 2004 from the Defendant at the E-type E-type Medical Center (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

원고는 2004. 6. 1. 왼쪽 눈 쌍꺼풀 풀림 및 짝짝이 교정술을 받으러 피고 병원에 내원한 적이 있다.

On June 17, 2005, the Plaintiff appealed from the Defendant’s assistant intervenor to receive re-operation free of charge from the Defendant’s assistant intervenor.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4, result of the physical appraisal commission to the president of the Korea University Cancer Hospital, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim did not restore the glue part after the re-operation, and there was an abstract part of the glue with the eyebrow as much as the glue length extends excessively to the glue part after the glue, and the glue part was excessively exposed to the glue part so that the glue part could be seen as abnormal glue, and the glue part was extremely exposed to the glue part.

The size and shape of both snow have become an irregular name because it does not contact with that of the snow to be collected under the upper part of the snow.

The strokeum stroke, which is behind the outside of the eye, has occurred in the end of the snow, and the snow ends always has been red, snow forests have been accompanied, and the eyesight has deteriorated.

The Defendant has been negligent in performing an autopsy, even though it had been performed since it did not prove safety and effectiveness since it cut off the trile of the trile of the trile, and moves the trile of the trile of the trile of the trile of the trile, and even if it is medically possible, it was negligent in performing the instant surgery while conducting the instant surgery, and there was an excessive excessive cutting of the trile of the trile of the trile, method of surgery, and side effects on the Plaintiff.