1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 25, 2012 to May 14, 2015, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 2012, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant 1 to remove e-mail from e-mail at the e-mail and the clinic run by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Council member”). In order to remove e-mail, the Plaintiff received the e-mail and the e-mail into e-mail (hereinafter “instant procedure”).

B. Around March 2, 2012, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant Council member and received treatment, such as disinfection of the superior to the surgery department, from D, the assistant nurse of the Defendant Council member.

C. On March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant’s Council member by telephone around the 14th day of the same month due to the occurrence of a dysium, but was unable to receive counseling due to the absence of the Defendant. On March 20, 2012, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s Council member and received treatment to remove the dysium from the Defendant.

Since March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff visited Defendant Council members on March 22, 2012, 24, and 26th day of the same month, and received treatment of finc, such as fincing and disinfecting fins and fins with fins, which are the assistant nurse of the Defendant Council members, in the absence of the Defendant.

E. From now to now, the Plaintiff was undergoing an additional injecting Stockholm from the Defendant on April 21, 2012, to the extent that the upper part of the surgery was not the front part of the surgery.

F. At present, the Plaintiff’s 4 cm and 5 cm’s upper reflects on the part of the Defendant, each of which remains 3 cm on the part of the U.S., and each of the above reflects (hereinafter “instant reflects”) is a testamentary gift, the permanent improvement of which is impossible.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, 4, Gap evidence 10-1 to 66, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not conduct the reaction test before the procedure in question to the plaintiff, and ② the defendant, not the defendant, who was not a doctor, to treat the chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological c, or c, to the defendant's assistant nurse, caused the