1. Regarding the medical treatment that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) provided to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) around January 3, 2005.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a herb doctor who operates one of the Korea-U.S.A. C Building 208 in Bupyeong-gu, Busan and the Korea-U.S. Medical Center.

B. Around January 3, 2005, the Defendant: (a) filed a complaint with D Council member on the ground that there was a pain on the part of the drilling; and (b) performed cryp treatment, physical therapy, and drilling from the Plaintiff on the part of the drilling; and (c)

Legal treatment (hereinafter “instant treatment”) was received.

C. After that, on March 28, 2005, the Defendant was diagnosed by clinical presumption at the Macheon-do National University Hospital as a neutical disorder with the bones of neutic disease accompanied by the nephal ppuri disease, and the Defendant was frightened only after the drilling No. 4,5, and6.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim) was appropriate during the entire process of diagnosis, treatment, etc. with respect to the Defendant, and thus, there is no negligence with respect to the instant treatment. Therefore, there is no liability for damages against the Defendant with respect to the instant treatment.

B. The defendant's assertion (the ground for counterclaim) during the treatment of this case

In the course of the treatment of this case, the pressure imposed unreasonable pressure in the course of the treatment of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's injury was caused on the part of the plaintiff's warning, and the injury was continued, and there was the total amount of attention caused by the subsequent change only on the part of the court below. This was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff in the course of the treatment of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim as part of the

3. In determining the cause of the principal lawsuit and the cause of the counterclaim, the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of care in the treatment process of this case merely based on the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 5, as to whether the above-mentioned injury or disease occurred on the Defendant’s side due to the Plaintiff’s negligence during the treatment process of this case

(2) The court below's determination