The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 9, 2018, the Plaintiff (C Life) visited D Anmbaum-type hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”) to receive medical treatment and examination from the Defendant as to the reduction of eyesight and the settlement of sight.

At the time, the plaintiff is not easy to drive considering the vehicle with the inside of the city.

Even for several years, it is good that the vision of the unit can be increased.

If the rise in the climatic force can be a little, it was called as "I would like to receive even the operation in a white spot in both sides."

B. On May 24, 2018, the Defendant explained to the Plaintiff that the result of the Plaintiff’s bilateral examination shows that “netal fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor

I explained.

(c)

The Defendant, on May 29, 2018, focused on the Plaintiff’s friendship, carried out a white-out surgery on May 30, 2018, and inserted a white-out surgery on May 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant surgery”). D.

After the instant surgery, the Plaintiff appeared to be better than before the instant surgery on June 2, 2018. On June 11, 2018, the date of the instant surgery was 0.6 and 0.7 safe correction vision of the Ma-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-si.

2) On June 26, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a notice to the Defendant that “a large snow is dried, and there is physical evidence.” On July 2, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) received treatment from another doctor of the instant hospital on the part of the instant hospital; and (b) deemed that “the grounds behind the surgery are well known; and (c) on July 14, 2018, the Defendant deemed that “the Defendant was rashing, and that the eye is difficult to view,” and (d) was 0.5 and 0.5.

3) On August 21, 2018, the Plaintiff received medical treatment and medicine prescriptions at the instant hospital, and on August 21, 2018, the Plaintiff stated that “The Plaintiff appeared to have been in good condition after the surgery, and the focus is not well consistent with the starting point.”

The defendant's opinion on the side of the plaintiff's change of reflectivity.