1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant operated the beauty art room in the name of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 103.

B. On April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff, at the beauty art room, was undergoing a eyebrow surgery by injecting anesthesia anesthesia from the Defendant and inserting the eye on the eyebrow in a digital machine by inserting knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife, and was undergoing a eye surgery by the same method as on April 7, 2017.

C. On April 8, 2017, the Plaintiff visited the Fanche Division located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Jongno-gu E (Seoul) to receive medical treatment, and prescribed the salt panumumum amount, etc., and on five occasions from October to 21 of the same month, the Plaintiff visited the Hanche Division located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to receive medical treatment, and prescribed the salt panum amount, antibiotics, etc.

On July 27, 2017, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million due to a violation of the Medical Service Act (Seoul Northern District Court 2017Da8171), and the said summary order was finalized on August 29, 2017, on the ground that “the Plaintiff, etc. was not a medical person, but performed eyebrows and surgery for an infant and received fees” as stated in the foregoing paragraph (B).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2 through 7, 10, and Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s act of violation of the Medical Service Act, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, caused side effects on the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was suffering from mental suffering to the extent that the Plaintiff could not be sentenced to punishment.

Therefore, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for consolation money of 10 million won and damages for delay.

B. As seen earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff received medical treatment several times immediately after the Defendant’s literacy treatment, and prescribed the salt points, antibiotics, etc., and that the Defendant received a summary order as a violation of the Medical Service Act in relation to the Plaintiff’s act of a literacy treatment.

On the other hand, the facts and the arguments in the basic facts of Paragraph 1 are all presented.