1. Defendant B’s KRW 2,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 12, 2008 to December 2, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Facts 1) The Plaintiff’s pet dog (hereinafter “the instant pet dog”) keyed by the Plaintiff.

(2) On May 8, 2008, Defendant B diagnosed the instant pet as “hycho-proof (defluently, hyna),” which had been operated by Defendant B, a veterinarian from around May 8, 2008, as a result of the petology test, blood test, and stoves test on the instant pet, the Defendant B diagnosed the pet as “hycho-proof (defluently, hynadical hynadical hynadical hynadic hynadic hynadic hynadic hynadic hynadic hynadic hynadic hynadic hynadic hynadic

3) Around May 15, 2008, the symptoms of the instant pet have temporarily ceased, and thereafter the symptoms have re-exploited, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant Hospital again on May 26, 2008, and the Defendant B prescribed the same medicine as the relocation without conducting an examination to diagnose biode infection. 4) The Plaintiff, even though all of the Defendant B’s “meburine” prescribed by the Defendant B, continued to visit another veterinary hospital on June 3, 2008 (the E-animal hospital located in the Sungnam-gu E-gu, Sungnam-si), and was diagnosed at the said hospital that the instant pet was bread and absent.

5) On June 9, 2008, the Plaintiff demanded that Defendant B refund medical expenses paid in response to Defendant B’s erroneous judgment, but Defendant B refused this request. Defendant B rejected this request. Defendant B received the above provision from the Plaintiff, and stated the “savorum liver” column among the medical records of the instant pet dog, and stated the prescription as having prescribed “sastum livers” for the purpose of treatment rather than “sastum sastum” for the purpose of treatment.

7. Meanwhile, the plaintiff from June 9, 2008 to the same year.

6.11.Defendant F, G, H et al., on the Internet attachment page of F, G, and H.