1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,354,512 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 2, 2016 to May 3, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff received a sex surgery for the following beauty art purposes from the Defendant

(hereinafter referred to as “instant surgery”) .- On April 16, 2015: Sheeting of a tag, reduction of external side figures, cururging (ap) - May 2, 2016 - On May 2, 2016: Sheeting of a tag, reduction of external side figures, reduction of entrance width - on July 13, 2016: Curging.

B. Due to the instant secondary surgery, there was a shot of a size of 1.5 cm on both sides of the Plaintiff’s admission.

(hereinafter “this case’s reflectr”). C.

An autopsying shall be conducted to rearrange the skin and the surrounding body of the autopsying structure around the entrance and to adjust the position of the beaming unit (rounding to the upper end) so that it may be placed up with the opening.

Crain removal operations shall normally be conducted for the purpose of removing the part in which the upper part is applied if the inner part of the upper part is faced. D.

The Plaintiff received a noise net operation, co-operation, and bad faith operation at another hospital during the period of time before and after the Defendant Hospital.

[Evidence Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8, Eul 1, Eul 2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s medical malpractice incurred loss of KRW 62,932,80,00 for KRW 1,700 for future treatment expenses of KRW 1,700,00 for future treatment expenses of KRW 28,92,00 for future treatment expenses of KRW 5,90 for future treatment expenses of KRW 28,92,00 for future treatment expenses) x 90% for damages of KRW 30,000 for consolation money of KRW 90.

The Defendant did not explain the possibility of the occurrence of the drilling disorder, negotisis damage, and the opening disorder due to each of the instant operations.

B. The defendant did not have any impediment to the plaintiff's assertion due to the instant surgery, and there is no negligence of the defendant.

The Defendant explained to the Plaintiff that the instant surgery could lead to a kel-free scarke.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;

A. Claim for damages on the ground that the medical practice by one doctor of antiscam constitutes a tort due to a breach of duty of care in the process.