1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The defendant is a dentist who operates a dental hospital with the trade name of "Dental clinic" on the fourth floor of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On February 11, 2011, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s hospital and received medical treatment from the Defendant, and received dental treatment at least 38 times from the Defendant from June 29, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1's entry and purport of whole pleadings.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case.

At the time of treating the Plaintiff, the Defendant explained to the Plaintiff that “at the time of treating the Plaintiff, 3 to 4 degrees of dental care for the previous Plaintiff, and the rest of the dental care must be received from the head of the braces.”

In addition, the defendant explained that "to put up a 1m-meter level to cover a brode".

The term "balth" means a procedure to install artificial substitutes for the frying of the remaining fryer who is lost by using the frying baby, and the balth therapy means a procedure to install a relic frying to replace the fryer by cutting the fryer in front and rear of the fryer who is lost by cutting the fryer and

However, the defendant did not explain that he would have come in advance in fact, but did not have two golds on the left side.

In addition, the defendant, unlike the explanation, made the baby more than 1m in a state where it is easy to leave the baby.

The Defendant treated the Plaintiff’s above-mentioned 3rd parts (five left side knife, four middle knife, five front knife on right knife) and provided treatment to each bale. Since there is a problem that no nutrition is supplied to knife upon the treatment of knife, the Defendant did not take such measures despite having to cover the knife.

Due to the Defendant’s negligence, from December 2013, 2013, the Defendant’s treatment of the head of Brazil was suspended from January 2, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant did not explain in advance to the left side of the left side of the defendant, and he did not observe the situation of the plaintiff.