1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim that: (a) the Plaintiff received a transplant surgery from the Defendant on February 15, 2012; (b) the Plaintiff was responsible for damages due to the Defendant’s tort by medical malpractice or nonperformance of obligations, as the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the surgery, including (c) the occurrence of low-efluences on the maternity organ after the surgery; (d) the growth rate of the transplant of the transplanted hair is low; and (e) the transplant rate of the transplanted hair is low; and (e) the transplant of the transplant is not having been

In addition, the Defendant’s failure to explain the risks, such as anticipated reflects prior to this case’s alcohol, thereby seeking damages for the reason that the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination was infringed as a patient.

2. Details and progress of the procedure for the plaintiff;

A. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff considered that the 1990-born female was excessively broad, and received a Hague transplant surgery at the hospital operated by the Defendant.

The above operation was recovered from the body of the back and transplanted on the part of the body of the back, and the defendant transplanted the 4500 head of the body of the back to the plaintiff in the above way.

B. As above, once a transplant occurs after one-third week after the surgery, there is no transplant organ, and the result of the transplant of hair begin with a new maternity organ from the transplant organ and after about one year elapsed from the surgery, the result of the transplant of hair will be stable. Although the growth rate differs somewhat depending on each person, unless there are special problems in the operation process or management after the surgery, most of them are known to be at least 90%.

C. The Plaintiff did not have any special problems until one month after the operation. However, the Plaintiff sent approximately two back to May 26, 2012 the symptoms of Mawing infection to the Defendant Hospital and continued to observe and prescribe drugs until December 10, 2012.

The plaintiff is currently infinite anti-finites on the part of the organ transplant.