1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,250,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from March 19, 2013 to July 13, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) sought counseling from a member of the Dsung Foreign Service (hereinafter “Defendant Council member”) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu Seoul; and (b) obtained counseling on the geneity type; and (c) received implementation of the relevant basin extension surgery.

B. From the day after the procedure, the Plaintiff complained of that there was an excessive protruding and inconvenience compared to the left side of the Defendant, but the relevant prototypes ought to be 1 to 2 months after the operation, so that prototypes can find a prototypes rapidly, the Defendant’s horse was worn along with his solicitation to wear a prototypes, and the Defendant wear a prototypes, upon which the solicitation was made.

C. After three months from the surgery, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on September 30, 2013 that the scarcity was transplanted by the medical personnel of the hospital, and the scarcity was inspected at E Hospital on September 30, 2013.

On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on October 10, 2013 that, as a result of a medical examination conducted at the Altol University Seoul Em University Hospital, the shape inserted from the medical personnel at the above hospital into the Plaintiff’s right chest was tentatively located, and the upper part of the body appears to be protruding.

On October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff received a promultive surgery from Gsung branch located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the content was replaced by 195C universal material in 220c universal material inserted on the right side.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 6; the result of the request to the head of the Central University Hospital of this Court for the appraisal of medical records; the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In full view of the facts acknowledged prior to the negligence in the basin expansion surgery and the following circumstances admitted by the evidence prior thereto, the Defendant is negligent in an operation inserted a square substance on the right side of the dam with the Plaintiff when he/she implements the basin expansion surgery.