1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 16, 2010 to April 29, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a medical specialist in gender foreign affairs, who is the president of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Sung foreign affairs division (hereinafter “Defendant Council member”).

B. On October 15, 2010, the Plaintiff, who was admitted to the Defendant’s Assembly member, received luminous reduction or nives reduction (hereinafter “instant surgery”) from the Defendant, and paid KRW 10 million at the operating cost.

C. (1) After the instant surgery, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Defendant’s member to observe the progress on October 20, 2010.

At the time, the parts of the luminous area were observed respectively on the parts of the luminous parts and the parts of the luminous parts, and the medical personnel of the Defendant Council decided to observe the progress of the moleculal parts and the parts of the fluoral parts.

(2) On October 25, 2010, the Plaintiff was admitted to the Defendant Council member, and there was no few additional statements.

(3) On November 26, 2010, the Plaintiff became a member of the Defendant Council, and the Plaintiff’s opinion was found in the part of the lower judgment, such as fladry, crying, salting, etc.

Accordingly, the medical personnel such as the defendant, etc. carried out scam and scambling under the national anesthesia on the same day, and carried out scam and scambling in November 29, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant is seeking compensation for damages of KRW 52 million in total for medical negligence and violation of the duty to explain as follows ( KRW 15,972,00 in the future medical expenses of KRW 15,972,00 in the amount of KRW 15,972,00 in the future medical expenses).

Although the Plaintiff’s medical negligence cited the Defendant’s duty to maintain the organization and form of the skin after surgery as well as the duty to normally maintain the organization and form of the skin after surgery, the Plaintiff’s medical negligence is not premised on specific duty of care, and it does not constitute negligence solely on the occurrence of bad faith.

The defendant has a duty of care to maintain the balance of face in the course of the instant surgery, and to perform surgery so as not to damage the gymale.