1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff got a cosexual surgery in Busan's sex surgery, and the left side of the musta, etc. protruding the musta, etc., and led to C Hospital operated by the defendant to correct it in order to realize the right side of the musta, etc.

On June 21, 2010, the Defendant: (a) performed the Plaintiff’s sexual intercourse surgery; (b) the Plaintiff resisted the Plaintiff’s complaint of the result of the surgery; and (c) on November 22, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff, stating that “The Defendant recognized that the sexual intercourse occurred in the sexual surgery that the Plaintiff performed; and (c) refunded KRW 1,500,000 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff recognized that all of the telecommunication categories were terminated. All civil and criminal responsibilities arise in the event that the content of the agreement is not fulfilled.”

On November 6, 2013, 2013), the Plaintiff confirms that the C Hospital does not raise any objection after the completion of future medical treatment in the operation to remove a foreign substance, and that the Plaintiff performs the surgery at his own request despite the C Hospital's explanation on the side effects that can be raised on the cosmetic.

In addition, after the writing of this letter, no civil petition shall be filed with the C Hospital, and the civil and criminal liability shall not be charged, and the damage that can be borne by the C Hospital shall be proved to be borne by the principal.

After that, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to continue the surgery, the Defendant received a letter from the Plaintiff prior to the alcohol on November 6, 2013, and performed the operation on the Plaintiff’s coaches.

판 단 원고는 코 성형수술을 잘못 받아 왼쪽 콧등이 돌출되는 부작용이 발생하였기 때문에 피고에게 그 비대칭을 교정하여 달라는 수술을 요청하였는데, 피고가 멀쩡한 오른쪽 코를 수술하여 부작용이 심해졌다면서 위자료 500만 원의 손해배상을 구한다.

The statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including the paper numbers) alone performed a wrong operation of the defendant to the right nose different from the plaintiff's request.