1. The Defendant’s KRW 500,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from April 27, 2015 to April 1, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff visited dental hospitals operated by the Defendant from May 2005 to June 2, 2005, and received surgery from the Defendant for planting four bits on the left-hand side of the 1, 2 Daegu and the 1, 2 Daegu Kaol.

B. The plaintiff was not well fixed to the bones of Daegu 1 on the right side of the upper music, and received procedures to re-eropate the upper spawn with a larger diameter from the defendant around May 2006.

After that, the Plaintiff had regularly received a medical examination from the Defendant until May 7, 2008, and did not undergo a medical examination for one period after having received a medical examination on or around February 28, 2009.

C. On January 20, 2010, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant in the state that the steel scrap No. 1 and No. 2 of the 1 and the franchis on the left-hand side of the lux and the franite body of the franchis No. 1 were damaged, and received a procedure to re-establish the franchis of the 1 Daegu franchis around January 27, 2010.

On September 20, 2010, the Plaintiff was treated by the Defendant by cutting off the scrap metal products of Daegu 1, and received treatment from the Defendant. On January 7, 2011, the Plaintiff refused treatment and demanded the Defendant to return the cost of the crypt treatment.

On January 28, 2011, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 5 million, which is the cost of the two procedures for the square.

After that, around March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant while franchis of the 1, 2 Daegu value, which was sealed by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s employee left the franchis of the 1st Daegu value in the process of inspecting the relic to prepare for treatment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Eul No. 1, Results of the request for appraisal of medical records to the head of Ulsan University Hospital in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 as to negligence in the course of the crypt procedure and re-treatment was unable to properly perform the procedure in which the Defendant was influort of the Plaintiff’s crypt 1, 2 Daegu cryp.