1. In relation to an operation performed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from February 19, 2013 to July 31, 2013.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 19, 2013, the Defendant sought to correct internal sewage and low noses, and consulted with the Plaintiff’s hospital operated by the Plaintiff, which is a medical specialist in sexual surgery. On February 25, 2013, the Defendant received from the Plaintiff, on February 25, 2013, an internal sewage correction method, including galbane surgery, melting the de facto container type into the company subject to the punishment (hereinafter “the primary surgery”).

B. The Defendant filed a complaint on the ground that the symptoms of the internal sewage cease to exist as a result of the primary surgery, and the Plaintiff’s correction thereof, respectively, on March 12, 2013, and July 31, 2013, respectively, (hereinafter “the second surgery”) and “the third surgery,” and (including the first surgery).

(1) 【No. 1 of the Act’s 1 of the Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea】

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) As a result of the Plaintiff’s medical negligence during the instant surgery, the Defendant’s gymmetrics and coconsents occurred on both snows and the end of the instant surgery. (2) At the time of the instant surgery, the Defendant merely explained from the Plaintiff that the snow gymblings were natural, and it was difficult for the Plaintiff to gymmetrics, and there was no explanation that the said gymmetrics occur.

3. Since such side effects were caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence in the operation and the violation of the duty to explain, the Plaintiff is obligated to return KRW 650,000 paid by the Defendant to the Defendant as operating expenses of the instant operation and compensate the Defendant for KRW 10,500,000 as consolation money and KRW 10,000 as compensation for future medical expenses.

B. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was not negligent in the Plaintiff with respect to the instant surgery, and the Plaintiff fully explained the side effects, such as a sub-name that may arise from the surgery at the time of the said surgery.

3. Determination

A. First of all, we examine whether there was medical negligence in the instant surgery to the Plaintiff during the instant surgery.

(b).