1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The facts under the basis of the facts are either in dispute between the parties or recognized by comprehensively considering the purpose of the entire pleadings in Gap 1-1, 1-2, and 1.

A. The Defendant is a medical corporation that operates the Gangnambuk Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

B. On September 7, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) applied to the emergency room of the Defendant hospital, after having teared the right eye; (b) received washing and antibiotics treatment, etc. on September 8, 2013; and (c) received treatment from the Defendant hospital’s sexual surgery for one month, while receiving treatment from the Defendant hospital’s sexual surgery; and (d) received a prescription for chest therapy in the upper part of the body.

C. However, from October 11, 2013 to April 201, the Plaintiff’s upper part of the Plaintiff’s wife showed the coloring phenomenon on the right luminous part of the Plaintiff’s upper part, and received from the Defendant hospital’s sexual surgery from the from around the day of April 2014. From that point, the Defendant hospital received from the rasher treatment at other hospitals than the Defendant hospital. From around November 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to the treatment, such as the rasher treatment, etc. from around November 2014 to the day of the imposition of the Defendant hospital.

2. The plaintiff's assertion summary 1) The non-party B, who is the sex and the main doctor of the defendant hospital, is an racer treatment (hereinafter "the procedure of this case") while treating the color bed on the part of the inner part of the plaintiff's right side.

(2) The Defendant Hospital did not explain to the Plaintiff that the instant procedure may arise due to its side effects while conducting the instant procedure. In addition, it did not explain to the effect that the coloring and low coloring may occur due to its side effects.

3. Therefore, the defendant, who is the operator of the defendant hospital, is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for property damage and mental distress suffered by the plaintiff due to the instant procedure.

3. Determination

A. The evidence alone presented in the instant case as to the negligence in the instant procedure was carried out excessively.