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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a doctor operating "C Council member", and the plaintiff was a person who established the above hospital for the management of the skin.

B. On August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant on the face side “IPL-Rad Latd Latd Latd Latd Latd Latd Latd Latd” (a procedure to improve the overall skin condition by affecting all the various trbs existing in the skin with a wide waveer) and “CO2-Radmbing procedure” (a procedure used to deduct the main points as a single waveer).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant procedure” in combination with the above procedure performed by the Defendant.

As a result of the instant treatment, the Defendant suffered 2 degrees of video injury in the face area.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In a case where a doctor’s medical practice becomes a tort due to a breach of duty of care in the process, there should be causation between negligence in medical practice and damage. The burden of proof is borne by the patient. However, since medical practice is an area requiring highly professional knowledge and it is extremely difficult to clarify whether a doctor’s breach of duty of care was committed in the course of medical practice or whether there was causation between the breach of duty of care and the occurrence of damage, it can be presumed that such symptoms are based on medical negligence if indirect facts are proved that there is any other reason than medical negligence in the course of surgery, if it is difficult to deem that there was any other reason than medical negligence in the course of surgery.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da6851, Feb. 12, 2015). (B)

In accordance with the above legal principles, the health team and the above.