1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff joined as a member of the skin management office in the trade name, “C” operated by the Defendant, and paid KRW 500,000 to the Defendant on April 9, 2015, subject to the back of the first half of the half of the year and the alrabing on both arms, four times, and four times for regeneration management.

B. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to manage the part of the upper half of the upper half (the upper part and the part) which was not originally included in the scope that the Defendant originally intended to undergo the part management, and the Defendant, instead of reducing the part management recovery from four to two times, provided that the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the two arms, instead of reducing the part management recovery, the Defendant carried out two part of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the two arms, in addition to the upper half of the two parts.

C. However, the Plaintiff did not receive two renewable managements from the Defendant until now.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 5, 16 through 18, Eul’s voice and statement, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that when joining the defendant's office as a member of the defendant's office of skin management, the plaintiff would be granted discount benefits when receiving the bad faith surgery in the DNA or E foreign department, and thus would be subject to the defendant's suspended management.

However, even though the Defendant had ordered the part management to the back of the upper half of the body and both arms, as the Plaintiff requested the part management of the upper half of the body (the upper half of the body) and the upper half of the body, the first part of the body of the procedure was just the back of the upper half of the body (the upper half of the body) and thus, the scope of the procedure was twice more, and the number of the procedure was reduced twice, and the recycling management service was not implemented.

In addition, since the plaintiff was examined to undergo a bad faith surgery in the DNA and E-out, no discount benefits have been provided on the ground that he is a member of the defendant's suspended management office.

Accordingly, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to make a refund on August 11, 2015, but the defendant does not recognize the error and rather is left to be the abnormal person of the plaintiff.