1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,069,767 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 22, 2013 to October 19, 2018.

1. Fact-finding;

A. On March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff is a male student, who was diagnosed with an inner red scarcity, etc. due to the expansion of the maternal scarcity of face at the “D” hospital run by the Defendant, and was in the operation of the blood scarke for the treatment (hereinafter “the first operation”), and was prescribed by the scarke for the treatment. B. On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff was again conducted at the Defendant Hospital for the expansion of the maternal scarke (hereinafter “the second operation”). The Plaintiff received the scarke surgery for the expansion of the maternal scarke (hereinafter “the second procedure”). After the procedure, the Plaintiff received the scarke injection and the partic scarke injection, antibiotics for scarke, scarke, scarke, and the partic cream prescription.

C. The Plaintiff visited the Defendant Hospital on May 18, 2013 due to the occurrence of water collection, diagnosis, etc. at the rear face, and received from that time medical treatment for strokes, such as strokes, and therapy of strokes and scokes, etc.

As of the date of closing argument of this case, the Plaintiff’s face 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm x 6 coloring, etc. are left remaining.

【Partial Grounds for Recognition】 Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 6 and Eul evidence 2 (including partial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and images, E hospital funerals as a result of the physical examination, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the cause of the instant claim (i.e., the Defendant conducted the instant procedure by raising the rash temperature compared to the first procedure at the time of the second procedure. Since the second procedure, there was a large quantity of rash and rashs on the part of the procedure from the time when the first place of the procedure becomes one week.

Although the Plaintiff had known that such symptoms were ordinarily generated in the course of treatment, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant Hospital on May 18, 2018 and continued to provide medical treatment from that time on the front day of the scheduled date, the Plaintiff did not face any symptoms.

Shebly, the Defendant’s output is excessive at the time of the second procedure.