1. The Defendant’s KRW 41,841,978 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from March 11, 2014 to August 22, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a doctor who operates a DNA-type medical clinic in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”), and the plaintiff is a person who has undergone a malicious operation at the defendant hospital.

B. On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff received malutical surgery, malutical surgery, and malutical surgery at the Defendant Hospital.

C. The Plaintiff complained of symptoms that the Plaintiff did not return to the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital after the surgery, and the Defendant Hospital performed a metal plate removal operation on April 2, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff was conducted a radiation inspection, including an oral meology examination, a simplified neology examination, a cardiopathy electric current examination, an external rupture image examination, and a computerized stratography examination. The Plaintiff was diagnosed as tripathal damage in the above hospital.

E. At the time of the physical examination, the Plaintiff expressed a sense of reduction or decrease below the normal level in both sides and the thresholds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, physical appraisal of the F Hospital Head of this Court and the result of the entrustment of examination and treatment to the F Hospital Head of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments and evidence incurred prior to the medical malpractice in the Defendant Hospital’s medical malpractice and causation 1) in the operation, the Plaintiff was found to have appealed from at least three months after the surgery (no medical record for past observation exists, but the Defendant appealed from the time when three months elapsed after the surgery to the time when the Plaintiff was performed.

(2) In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s surgery division and damaged Nonparty’s surgery division coincide; and (b) there is no evidence by which the Plaintiff could verify the existence of symptoms beyond the sense of identification prior to the instant surgery; (c) medical personnel at Defendant Hospital in the process of the instant surgery, it is reasonable to view that the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital excessively towed the bareboat during the instant surgery and damaged it. (b) The negligence during the process of the process