1. Regarding the medical practice listed in the attached list, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages to the Defendant is 1,00.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relevant Plaintiff is a doctor operating a dental clinic located in Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Plaintiff Hospital”), and the Defendant is a patient who has received dental treatment at the Plaintiff Hospital.

B. The Defendant’s treatment content 1) On July 30, 2018, the Defendant’s treatment at the Plaintiff’s hospital for the second Daegu dental treatment (hereinafter “instant medical treatment”).

(2) On August 2, 2018, the Defendant was issued with the Plaintiff’s hospital, as a member of the Plaintiff’s hospital, and received a prescription, following the Defendant’s appeal for an open increase in the value of sheshel and she received shelishing on the back of the Plaintiff’s place of origin after the instant medical practice.

3) On August 3, 2018, the following day after the Defendant was admitted to the emergency room of the D Hospital, and on August 4, 2018, the Defendant discharged the hospital from the hospital on August 16, 2018, after receiving an overall anesthesia, after receiving a diagnosis of “infection and farming,” and under the diagnosis of “infection and farming” from the hospital, the Defendant discharged the hospital on August 16, 2018. The fact that there is no ground for dispute over the recognition, the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Nos. 1 and 2, and Nos. 3-1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant claimed compensation for damages by asserting that the medical act in this case caused “intest salt and farming,” but this is deemed to have been caused by an inevitable complication that could occur after the outbreak or the defendant’s urine disease. Since the medical act in this case cannot be deemed to have been caused by the plaintiff’s negligence, the plaintiff asserts that there is no obligation to pay damages against the defendant in relation to the medical act in this case.

B. 1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a pecuniary obligation of the relevant legal doctrine, if the Plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims in advance to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the claim first, the Defendant, as the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and certification as to the elements of the right relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). In addition, the error in medical practice is attributable