1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 7,019,832 to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from October 12, 2012 to November 10, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. The facts below the basis facts do not conflict between the Parties. A.

The Defendant is an intention to operate the “Defendant Hospital” (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

B. On October 12, 2012, the Plaintiff received local transplant that injects the area extracted from the Plaintiff’s body from the Defendant at the Defendant Hospital over the face of the Plaintiff’s math, chin, etc. (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

2. Grounds for liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) After the instant procedure, the Plaintiff’s alteration of appearance due to partial correction and partial correction (hereinafter “the result of the instant malicious act”) on the surface of the upstream, the mouth, both sides, and the e part of both sides and the e part of both sides (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”).

(2) The result of the instant bad faith was caused by the Defendant’s failure to properly determine the volume of the area to be injected at the time of the instant procedure, and the Defendant’s injecting the area more than necessary.

[Based on Recognition] 3, 5, 6-1 through 6-4, and 11-1 through 11-14; the result of the response to the physical commission of the Central University Hospital of this Court; the result of the response to the request for the physical commission of the Central University of Egratives to Egrative hospitals attached to the Egratives University of Egratives; the purport of the entire pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition as to the negligence in the procedure, it is recognized that the defendant breached the duty of care to inject the suitable area in the course of the procedure, and the causal relationship between such breach of duty of care and the result of the instant bad faith is recognized.

Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above medical malpractice.

C. A physician’s duty to explain for patients of breach of duty of explanation is a procedural measure that is essential to the doctor in the course of moving into a sed medical practice (in particular, in the case of the implementation of cosmetic purposes such as the instant procedure not for disease treatment, the doctor’s duty to explain should be more strictly observed), and is a doctor in light of the importance of such duty.