1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. From July 24, 2006, the Plaintiff was consulted with the Defendant on the correction of the protruding from the “Cail Department” established and operated by the Defendant, and decided to receive the correction treatment from the Defendant. On August 22, 2006, the Defendant launched both of the Plaintiff’s 1 primary antipath and the corrective towing began.

B. On January 19, 2007, the Defendant confirmed that there was a change in the upper left left-hand fluor (21 pactia; hereinafter “the instant fluor”) of the Plaintiff’s regular inspection of the correction device, but the process was passed, and confirmed that there was no other treatment for the instant fluor, and on February 8, 2007, the instant fluor was treated as temporary drug after the fluor treatment.

C. On March 20, 2007 and April 1, 2008, the Defendant provided each white therapy to the instant dental infant at the time of visiting the Plaintiff’s correction device. D.

On June 22, 2007, the Defendant started the correction towing of the Plaintiff’s department of the instant dental services, and completed the Plaintiff’s correction treatment on July 20, 2009. On August 28, 2009, the Defendant provided the instant dental services to the instant dental services.

E. On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff received regular medical treatment in the Defendant’s dental license. On the other hand, on the part of the Defendant’s dental license, the instant dental license was shakened by the instant dental license, and the Defendant confirmed that the instant dental license was interrupted by the dental license and the dental license, and recommended the Plaintiff to undergo the instant dental license and the instant dental license.

F. The Plaintiff is in a state in which it is necessary to perform a brotory or frotory surgery after the Plaintiff’s outbreak of the frotory part of the instant dental plant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-7 (including paper numbers), each image of this Court Nos. 1-7 (including paper numbers), the result of this Court’s commission of physical examination to the President of the Korea National University of Home University

2. The Plaintiff’s cause of the claim is ① The Defendant’s negligence in the course of the correction and treatment to the Plaintiff.