1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a dentist who operates a dental clinic, and the Plaintiff is a dentist who received dental treatment from the Defendant from September 16, 200 to April 17, 2009, including dental and dental surgery.

B. The Plaintiff received treatment from the Defendant on two occasions in 2001, three occasions in 2003, one time in 2004, and one time in 2004, and thereafter received treatment from August 2007 to May 2008.

C. The defendant around October 23, 2001 against Daegu Daegu District, the left-hand side of the plaintiff, around July 2, 2003, against the second Daegu District, the right-hand side of the plaintiff around July 2, 2003, from August 24, 2007

9. From February 18, 2008, with respect to Daegu High-gu, the left-hand 1stast, treatment of each water control plant, provisional shock power plant, coconsia, neighboring expansion, cleaning, grheating, grheating, and refrating, refrating, refrating, refrating, refrating, and refrating steel water, etc.

From March 6, 2008, the defendant

3. From April 3, 2008 to April 3, 2008, the Plaintiff provided treatment, such as flood control, expansion of root control, cleaning, etc. with respect to Daegu Daegu High-gu, the right side of which of the Plaintiff.

4. By the end of 29.2, medical treatment, such as repair, washing, etc., was provided to the right lower-class 2 Daegu and Daegu High-class 1.

Then, on May 1, 2008, the defendant deleted from the 1st Daegu on the plaintiff's right-hand side, and the same year.

5. On 14. 14. As to the 1stst Daegu Daegu, it installed a relic of the mixed-mixr, and treated the relic of the relic of the relic.

E. On May 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed an appeal for symptoms because the sum of the first Daegu and the upper jun on the right-hand side of the Boan-do, the defendant filed an appeal for its symptoms. On May 21, 2008, the defendant filed an appeal for removal of eight jun on the left-hand side of the plaintiff's counterclaim.

F. On May 22, 2008, the following day, the Plaintiff still did not fit the total of dental services, and as a result of the preceding procedure, the Plaintiff complained of sufferings, such as contact with the lower her mouth, the Defendant additionally performed removal procedures for eight (8) her centering on the Plaintiff’s above and the lower her.

G. The plaintiff is on two occasions from the defendant.