1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) on February 2, 2010, the Defendant, a dentist, had been administered with respect to six (6) infants including the right-hand dogs; and (b) on account of the side effects of the said file procedure, he/she received ney treatment from April 2010 to three (3) months.

After that, the Plaintiff continued to provide dental services and received medical treatment from the Seoul National University Hospital around July 2010, and needs to undergo the surgery of the dental team in the future.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the treatment of erroneous infants.

The scope of liability for damages is 3,57,770 won for medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the dental hospital of the Seoul National University, 603,554 won for future medical expenses, and 3,00,000 won for mental suffering.

2. The fact that the Defendant, from February 2, 2010 to June 2, 2010, provided the Plaintiff’s dental treatment and the Plaintiff’s dental treatment to the Plaintiff’s dental infant with C, who was a ward physician, does not have any dispute between the parties.

On the other hand, the defendant is suffering from the treatment of the plaintiff.

The fact that around October 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 110,000 to the Plaintiff for medical expenses, and the fact that C found in the hospital and paid KRW 1,000,000 to the Plaintiff who claimed in the hospital was the Defendant.

However, there was any negligence on the part of the Defendant on the ground that the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the result of the court of first instance entrusted physical examination to the court of first instance on the part of the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff suffered any loss due to the above treatment, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.