207 Ghana 15432(d) of damages (in the principal lawsuit)

207dan154349 (Counterclaim) Damage

P (59. W. L.W. 59.W.)

Law Firm International, Attorney Lee Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

D (59 years old, South)

August 22, 2008

October 31, 2008

1. All of the claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against each party.

The principal lawsuit: Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter Defendant) shall pay to Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter the same shall apply) 15,535,530 won with 5% interest per annum from January 21, 2007 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 76,680,000 won with interest rate of 20% per annum from the day after the service of the counterclaim of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. Summary of the cause of the principal claim

(1) On January 20, 2007, the Plaintiff was administered by the Defendant, who was a doctor, for the removal of marine in the following visual part: (a) due to the Defendant’s misunderstanding that the location and volume of injection was inappropriate, the Defendant caused ringings in the following visual part; and (b) the brush part was fluent, and fluent, brucated, and brued.

(2) The Defendant had to explain in advance the method of the procedure and the side effects that may arise after the procedure prior to the procedure of the supplementary procedure for sex use, but did not give such explanation and thereby was deprived of the opportunity for the Plaintiff to decide whether to undergo the procedure.

(3) The damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s medical malpractice should be paid with consolation money of KRW 1,182,250 in total, and KRW 10 million in consideration of mental pain and economic activity caused by the drilling.

B. Facts recognized

(1) 원고는 2007. 1. 20. 피고가 운영하는 부산 동래구에서 운영하는 XX의원에서 의사인 피고에게 60만원을 지급하고, 피고로부터 원고의 미간에서 꺼진 부분, 코와 뺨 사이의 팔(八)자 모양 골, 콧등 부분에는 '레디어스'라는 성형용 보충제를 주사기를 이용하여 주입받는 시술을, 양쪽 아래 속눈썹으로부터 2㎜ 밑의 눈꺼풀 부분에 '매트리덱 스'라는 성형용 보충제를 0.05cc씩 주사기를 이용하여 주입받는 시술을 받았다(이하 이 사건 시술이라 한다).

(2) Before performing the instant treatment, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to injecte the skin to inject the skin by means of removing the diameter of the eye part of the eye part of the body, and, upon receiving the above treatment, may destroy the body without complicated surgery, and then can lead a daily life immediately after the treatment. However, when the volume of injective agents for medical treatment falls short of the volume of injective agents, the Defendant explained that the melting removal may occur, and that it may be removed by using the melting removal.

(3) On January 22, 2007, after undergoing the instant treatment, the Plaintiff complained of the Plaintiff that he had been aware that he had been influenced about the following visual part, and that he had been influenced about 0.03 cccs influenced parts below the Plaintiff who injected Matritrins.

(4) Around March 20, 2007, a foreign substance with a relatively short size of 12 x 6mm away from the Plaintiff’s right side is observed with the same size of 2.6 x 7mm away from the snow pool above the left side. The foreign substance was reduced to approximately 1/3 from March 27, 2007 around November 27, 2007, and the size was small to the extent that it is difficult to observe on January 11, 2008.

(5) Pursuant to the rhythrhym of the skin body, a flusium functioned to injecte the flusent body into the flusium that lost the flusium. It is a product that injects the flusium differently from a permanent flusium and absorbs it into the body body for about 1 to 2 years after inserting it into the flusium. The flusium of the Defendant’s flusium called “brusium” that was given to the Plaintiff is mainly an hlusium acid and the flusium Nos. flusium. The hlusium acid is a major substance that constitutes the flusium. As the flusium has an expanded effect by inserting it into the flusium body, most of the flusium is relatively stable used in the flusium body, and the flusium plays a role of facilitating flusium by temporarily drawing large cells cells cells in the skin body.

(6) The removal of under-water cathers may take into account rashers booming the body, chemical stuffing, surgery, and non-fating rash personal caters, bats, sex supplementary agents, etc. The removal of under-water cathers may take into account, inter alia, the removal of under-water cathers according to the doctor’s experience and cat, without particular provisions of law.

C. However, if the shape is not good by inserting a small volume supplement, making it in a suitable shape with the patient while injecting a small volume supplement, and observing after injecting it, it would enhance the patient's subjective satisfaction by adding or inserting a supplementary solution, or by inserting a melting the melting removal for the removal of a supplementary solution.

(7) The hyalidos (Hyalidos) can be easily decomposed by hyalidos (Hyalidos) and using it to eliminate the hyalidos. If the hyalidos is desired to be completely removed, hyalidos in quantity such as the injecting quantity, and if the hyalidos is intended to be reduced, hyalidos in quantity such as the injecting quantity.

(8) There may be side effects, such as chromosome, child-care species outbreak, skin spawning, melting, and spawning, in relation to sex-type supplementary injecting operations, but there was no such side effects on the Plaintiff (Evidence: omitted).

C. Determination

(1) First, it is deemed that a foreign substance in the form of dyp found in the Plaintiff’s bryp after the instant procedure was formed by the supplementation of the sex that was injected into the instant procedure, and in itself, there is no material to deem that the said foreign substance was inevitably generated due to the instant procedure, and that there was no physical disability or danger, and that there was no material to deem that the said substance was caused by any physical disability or injury after about one year of the instant procedure, and that it was difficult to deem that the occurrence or remainder of the said substance was likely to cause any injury to the Plaintiff to the extent that it was unable to engage in social or labor activities, such as the size, location, and remaining period, etc. of the said substance after about one year of the instant procedure. Accordingly, the existence of the said substance cannot be inferred to deem that there was any negligence in any procedure by the Defendant.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff’s shape or form of the instant procedure does not appear in a subjective mind, such circumstance alone does not lead to the Defendant’s medical negligence. According to the above recognized facts, the Defendant appears to have performed the instant procedure in accordance with the general law on the removal of residual oil, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was negligence on the part of the Defendant.

(3) Furthermore, according to the above facts, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant explained to the plaintiff that prior to the instant procedure, the purpose and method of the instant procedure were sufficiently explained to the extent sufficient for the plaintiff to exercise the right to self-determination related to the instant procedure, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise, in full view of the following: (a) the defendant, prior to the instant procedure, intended to injecting the parts to expand the skin by removing the skin; (b) added supplementary agents or removed them in order to add or remove them according to the shape and condition after the injecting; and (c) the instant procedure does not entail any special invasion on the body; and (d) sexual supplementary agents used in the instant procedure were for temporary effects of about 1 and 2 years; and (c) there is no evidence to deem otherwise.

(4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit, as it is not acknowledged that the Defendant’s negligence or violation of the duty to explain was in the course of the Defendant’s procedure.

2. Determination on a counterclaim

A. Summary of the cause of the counterclaim

(1) From six days after the instant medical procedure, the Defendant returned medical expenses by avoiding disturbance at the Plaintiff’s hospital, while the effect of the instant medical procedure on the part of the minor, etc., including the minor, etc., no longer exists.

(2) On February 15, 2007, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant’s hospital “Samaman only Mamadi, Mamadi, Mamadi, 100 people 10 people in our food equipment to stop a hospital again,” and the Plaintiff did not breast the horses “I do not go back.” On February 23, 2007, the Defendant sent a proof of the content of the Defendant’s unilateral assertion that I would bring the Defendant to the Police Station, the Medical Association, and the Consumer Protection Board of Korea.

(3) On March 10, 2007, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s medical room and interfered with the Defendant’s normal medical treatment. (4) The Defendant transferred the hospital on April 2007 due to the Plaintiff’s interference with medical treatment and mental intimidation, and accused the Plaintiff as a crime of intimidation, obstruction of medical treatment, defamation, etc. on July 2007. The Plaintiff did not submit certain evidentiary materials until then and interfere with the Defendant’s normal medical treatment business, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for material and mental distress suffered by the Defendant due to the above acts.

(5) The Defendant’s material damage is the sum total of KRW 45,680,00,00 for all construction costs, and KRW 21,100,000 for the hospital’s sales that were not raised compared to the previous six months after the previous six months, and should be paid as consolation money for emotional distress.

B. Determination

According to the statements in Eul 1 (Peremptory Notice on Compensation for Damages) and Eul 2-11 (non-prosecutions), the plaintiff found his hospital on February 15, 2007 and told about the side effects of the procedure of this case while he talked about the side effects of the procedure of this case, the plaintiff sent the defendant with the same purport as the defendant's assertion on February 22, 2007. On March 10, 2007, the plaintiff requested the defendant to conduct the procedure of this case after finding about about five and six minutes of the defendant's family's family's family's family's side effects of the procedure of this case and requesting the defendant to conduct the procedure of this case. However, the plaintiff's act of this case is nothing more than the extent to discuss subjective complaints about the procedure of this case which the defendant received from the defendant, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's subjective satisfied acts of this case goes beyond the most important form of sexual surgery and other acts of expression, the frequency of the plaintiff's behavior or freedom to respond to it as unlawful.

Therefore, under the premise that the plaintiff's act is illegal, it is not reasonable to examine the defendant's counterclaim claim and it is not reasonable to do so.

3. Conclusion

For the above reasons, all of the principal lawsuit and counterclaim claims in this case are dismissed.

Judges Kim Dong-jin