1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff used hearing aids to both ear, when the hearing ability has deteriorated after the left ear surgery of around 1990 and the right ear surgery of around 1992 due to heavy infection, and was inspected by the Plaintiff to undergo the Defendant’s medical treatment (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”).

B. As a result, on December 27, 2012, the Defendant issued a certificate of disability diagnosis to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: “The Plaintiff issued a certificate of disability diagnosis stating the type of disability as “unexploited” to the Plaintiff: “I need prompt rehabilitation by wearing hearing aids on both sides of the mixed ear of ear-to-cerebral and chronology test (at least 70dB on the right side, 65dB on the right side, the left side, 60dB on the right side, and the net pyo-to-face test.”

C. On December 28, 2012, the following day, the Defendant carried out a test type marcing procedure on the Plaintiff’s right ear (on the part outside of the inner part of the ear), and upon confirmation of the inner part of the outer part of the right gate in the course of the operation, the Defendant carried out the test type marcing procedure on the Plaintiff’s right ear, and upon confirmation of the erosion of a part of the earculation, the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital carried out the marcing procedure and the earcing procedure on the same day for the Plaintiff’s right ear on the same day (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

On December 29, 2012, the day following the instant surgery, the Plaintiff was discharged on December 29, 2012, but was discharged from the Defendant Hospital again on January 10, 2013, and received a removal of shots and disinfection treatment.

E. After that, on February 18, 2013, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff’s vision had been improved than before the instant surgery.

F. The Defendant explained to the Plaintiff that he was to go home after the month, but the Plaintiff did not go home to the Defendant Hospital for several months. However, the Plaintiff was going to go home to the Defendant Hospital on June 17, 2013.