1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 to Plaintiff A, as well as 5% per annum from June 11, 2011 to April 19, 2018, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff A is a person who received dental treatment from the Defendant.

Plaintiff

B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A.

The defendant is a doctor who runs the F dental clinic in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building 204.

Plaintiff

B and the defendant are higher-ranking villages.

B. On March 201, Plaintiff A applied to the Defendant Hospital in order to be corrected by a malicious baby protruding out in the future.

The defendant did not receive medical treatment, and laid the dental diagnosis model for the plaintiff A, and took corrective treatment as non-exploitation.

It corresponds to the non-conformity of class II under the dental diagnosis model.

C. On May 201, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff A to correct the ambaloping of the ambaloping of the ambaloping of the ambaloping of four ambaloping of the ambaloping of the ambaloping of the ambaloping of the ambal.

After X-ray photographs were taken by the Defendant, on May 7, 201, 201, 2 of the Haak-gu Haak-gu and 2 of the Maak-gu 16 May 201.

On May 24, 2011, a blouseet and a blouse were installed in Plousea, and a blouse was treated on June 11, 201 in blousea.

The defendant did not receive any medical expenses in this part.

Plaintiff

A, due to inconvenience, unreplaced the fruit for correction again with a pain.

In April 2012, the plaintiff A discontinued correction treatment due to inconvenience and loss of trust caused by dispute with the defendant.

(hereinafter “instant correctional treatment”). D.

On July 13, 2012, after the discontinuance of the instant correctional treatment, Plaintiff A received a diagnosis of the protruding of the mathical typology 2 level 3 in the correction-affiliated hospital and the correctional-affiliated hospital (which was located in the front bank compared to the mathical mathical mathy), the protruding of the mathical math, and the excessive math

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8, Eul 1 through 13, and the court's entrustment of records appraisal to the president of the Korean Dental Association, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s medical malpractice (such as a pre-examination, unnecessary discovery of medical records, and false preparation of medical records, etc.) is adverse to Plaintiff A.