1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. A. On June 2016, the Plaintiff visited the “C Dental” operated by the Defendant and received correction treatment for a baby (hereinafter “instant correction treatment”).

B. On June 27, 2016, the Defendant cut off the part of the Plaintiff’s front custody, and attached a sick on a temporary basis, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 621,300 to the Defendant at the expense of the said inspection, cutting off, and installation of a sick dust.

C. On July 2, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) visited the foregoing dental license again to attach a re-explos manufactured for the purpose of attaching to the front thereof; and (b) installed a brobeet to install a re-explos necessary for dental treatment.

The Defendant predicted the period of 30 months for the instant correctional treatment to the Plaintiff, and requested the Plaintiff to pay KRW 5 million, including the future correctional expenses, and on July 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant with the card.

E. On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff suspended the correction treatment of this case to the Defendant, and sought removal of the device for the correction treatment of this case.

On July 6, 2016, the defendant removed 4 devices from Stainless Sheel Bandandle installed in the 1st Daegu of the plaintiff's upper right base.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 9 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence 2, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant's recommendation for corrective treatment to the effect that "the defendant inevitably gives corrective treatment to recover due to poor ging health condition or protruding ahead of it" is wrong, and if the defendant's employee has mistakenly explained it, it should have accurately explained it.

In addition, the number of the original parts of the defendant's front right of the plaintiff is excessively, and there is no explanation to the plaintiff or the consent of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from the cost of KRW 1 million on the day out of the amount paid by the Plaintiff on July 2, 2016, 5 million.