1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted as follows: (a) from May 23, 2018 to September 13, 2018, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s forest after having been subjected to bed and frighting, and electricity treatment at Hanwon operated by the Defendant; and (b) thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the tort.

2. Determination of medical practice is an area requiring high-level expertise, and it is extremely difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether a doctor has breached his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists a causal relationship between a breach of such duty of care and the occurrence of damage. Therefore, in a claim for damages arising from a series of medical practice conducted on the part of the injured party’s violation of the duty of care, the act of medical negligence based on the ordinary common sense cannot be verified, and the other reasons for the occurrence of such a result can not be changed except a series of medical practice. On the other hand, in a case where the patient proves that there was no health defect that could have caused such a result prior to the medical practice, the burden of proving the causal relationship between the medical negligence and the result should be mitigated so that the patient can be held liable for damages. However, even in this case, the existence of medical negligence based on the common sense of the general public is not allowed to prove the patient’s negligence.

In this case, in light of the following facts: (a) there is no specific argument and evidence as to whether the Plaintiff’s body was imageed by the Defendant’s medical negligence; and (b) there is no possibility that the images suffered by the Plaintiff were placed in the Plaintiff’s body rather than due to the Defendant’s invasion and incidental navigation in the Defendant Han-won, and electric treatment, it cannot be ruled out that the Plaintiff suffered pictures as alleged by the Defendant’s negligence, and otherwise, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff suffered pictures from the Defendant’s negligence.