beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and incidental appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. Appeal and.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From April 17, 2012 to November 28, 2011 of the same year, the Plaintiff is a person who received cental surgery, etc. from the Defendant, a dentist, as follows.
1) On April 17, 2012, first of the Defendant’s dental visit 2) on May 2, 2012, 2012, re-production 4 on June 11, 2012, 2012, the removal of the fluory zone on October 5, 2012, after the second operation of the fluort on October 28, 2012.
B. On December 5, 2012, the Defendant was diagnosed at the Medical Center of East Asia as a salt certificate around fluort. On December 21, 2012, 2012, the Defendant removed fluore-type 2 of the Haak left-hand No. 2 of the Haak-gu on the left-hand side of the Haak-gu on December 21, 2012, and removed fluor-type fluor-type fluor-to the right-hand side of the Haak-dong on January 11, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 2, 3, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. For the reasons delineated below the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the defendant's side effects of the defendant's crym operation.
1) The Plaintiff did not have any specific explanation from the Defendant on the anticipated risk of the disturbance procedure and on the aftermath, and thus, the Defendant violated the duty to explain. 2) The Plaintiff, after the process of manufacturing the crypt, performed the crypt operation even after the Defendant continued to perform the crypt operation.
Due to these Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff suffered physical and mental damage, such as removing all of the flass performed by the Defendant while suffering from severe pains and daily life, and receiving further treatment.
B. According to the statement of the evidence No. 7, whether the Plaintiff breached one explanation duty, the Plaintiff’s statement from the Defendant on June 18, 2012.