1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a dental clinic with the Defendant’s (hereinafter “Defendant’s dental clinic”) for the purpose of the malute and the treatment of the symptoms of the fluoral (the left-hand side of the fluoral) on December 22, 2014.

On this day, the doctor of Defendant Dental, who was in charge of the Plaintiff, temporarily filled the spawn part, and explained to the Plaintiff that the spawn or the spawn steel treatment was defective upon the progress of the process.

B. On January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff re-explosived the Defendant’s dental license. The Defendant, including the dental license No. 22, deleted part of four infants (No. 11, 12, 21, and 22), recommended the Plaintiff to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation treatment using the PFM cropos (hereinafter “instant treatment”).

In response, the plaintiff received the above treatment on the day, and paid 50,000 won out of 1 million won to the defendant for medical treatment.

C. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff re-explosive the Defendant Dental on the following grounds: (a) there were symptoms of pain and fluence on the part of the instant treatment.

Although the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to undergo close inspection and probationary treatment, the Plaintiff refused to do so.

On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff received commuting treatment from the Defendant’s dental clinic as a patient.

E. On January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff received the commuting treatment and the Zaniscoopic steel treatment at D dental clinics, and paid KRW 2,155,700 for medical expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant treatment is the so-called rapid correction treatment, which requires a large number of deletions. In the case of the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff did not have to provide the said treatment, the Defendant selected an erroneous treatment method and caused pains and symptoms to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant paid 11,122,800 won (=the instant treatment cost 500,000 DNA dental clinic treatment costs) due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty to choose appropriate treatment method.