1. The defendant shall pay KRW 5,000,000 to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was admitted to the E-type surgery operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”), paid KRW 1,250,000 at the operating expenses, and received a pair of schip surgery (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

B. After the operation, the Plaintiff appeared in a situation where the size of the snow on the left side seems to vary from the time of the operation, and the height of both sides on the left side, compared to the actual right side, is observed at a level of about 1m in inside and about 2m in outside.

[Ground of recognition] A.1 to 3 evidence, the result of the physical appraisal commission to the director of the Busan National University Hospital, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant had a duty of care to closely examine the degree of protruding of the Plaintiff’s inside and outside sides and other Plaintiff’s visual condition during the instant surgery, but did not perform such a duty of care, thereby causing the Plaintiff’s cross-name between both snow and both snow parts.

She also did not have any explanation from the Defendant that the above sub-name may take place according to the multiple alcohol in the instant case at the time of the instant surgery.

Secondly, due to the above side effects caused by the Defendant’s negligence in the operation and the violation of the duty to explain, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 1,90,000 and KRW 34,60,000,000,000,000,000.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not err by the Defendant in relation to the instant surgery, and fully explained the side effects, such as the name, etc. that may arise from the surgery at the time of the instant surgery.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. We examine whether there was negligence on the part of the Defendant in the process of the instant surgery, first of all, whether there was medical negligence.

According to the record of Gap evidence No. 3 and the result of the physical examination entrusted to the director of Busan University Hospital, it is now after the operation of this case.