1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 11, 2013 to November 24, 2016.

1. On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff was administered with love to the right chron (Article 3 Daegu - Ma48) from the Defendant, and thereafter, complaining of opical pathromanism.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. As to medical malpractice, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, given that the Defendant had a high level of care to minimize adverse effects or post-treatment caused by love care through the accurate autopsy evaluation before the procedure, cinematographic diagnosis, and accurate manipulation of the operating body, without having knowledge about the autopsy structure and connection of bad faith, and the surgery route, etc., of the operating body.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant violated any duty of care at the time of the creation of love.

Rather, according to the results of the appraisal by this court, it is recognized that the form of the 3 Daegu Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern Madne and Madern Madern Madern Madern Madern

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

B. As to the violation of the duty to explain, 1 duty to explain is a procedural measure that is essential to a doctor in the process of moving into an aggressive medical practice, in view of the importance of such duty, it is deemed that at least the patient needs to perform his/her duty to document and preserve the contents explained by him/her, and it is extremely easy for the doctor to prove the performance of the duty to explain by such document, while it is extremely difficult for the patient to prove that the patient has not fulfilled the duty to explain in light of its nature.