1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,934,450 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 23, 2013 to January 17, 2017 for the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff was consulted by the Defendant, who was a doctor, on visiting the Dsung Foreign Department operated by Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

On October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a reduction in the inner side of the Defendant, a reduction in the outer side of the Plaintiff through a mouth rupture, and a rupture operation on the outer side of the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant surgery.” On the following day, the Plaintiff partially removed boomed out of the Defendant Hospital’s bottom, and was treated by a nurse who is not a doctor.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant Hospital on October 28, 2013, and upon examining the Plaintiff’s condition, the Defendant confirmed that the upper part of the surgery was not clean, and re-sealed the bottom part of the operation, and removed the boomed on the following day.

The Plaintiff, at the Defendant Hospital, was subject to removal and reproduction of the rash pleas, and a chest prescription four times from October 31, 2013 to December 2, 2013.

On December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff received explanations from Defendant Hospital that there is a possibility of a severe scarbing operation, and thereafter continued to undergo a PRP treatment on the part of the racer and recycling method for chest treatment from January 11, 2014 to November 4, 2014, in particular, on the part of the human scarbing and scarbing method, etc.

C. At present, the Plaintiff did not improve the said procedures and treatment as seen above, and the Plaintiff left a scarb that could not completely improve the part of the bottom of the code with a scarb that cannot be fully improved as a sex, and there was also a scarbing reflect on the part of the scarb.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-6 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. Although the basis nurse for responsibility ought to provide medical treatment under the direction or report of a doctor, the Defendant hospital removed part of the Plaintiff’s breadbed colon’s breath of the surgery without diagnosis or judgment of a doctor on the following day of the instant surgery.

The defendant.