1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that for “1. Basic Facts,” and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant B is liable for nonperformance of the duty of care and tort liability as to the violation of the duty of care under the following medical practice, and Defendant C is liable for damages as the user of Defendant B. Therefore, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to jointly pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,977,729, 946, 380, 946, 380, 810,000,000 for future treatment expenses, and KRW 20,000,000,000,000 as compensation for damages. (A) Defendant B, as a medical doctor in the field of anesthesia pain, can use a dental protection device in a case where the state of her infant is defective by closely checking the state of her infant before anesthesia, and rather than a general lebbal, by using a video or optical fiber breging, and also in the process of inserting it inside the engine.

Nevertheless, Defendant B did not properly confirm the Plaintiff’s oral structure or the state of dental health before anesthesia, and caused the Plaintiff’s error of inserting five the Plaintiff’s humconium by using the general humconical diameter.

B) Defendant B, in violation of the duty to explain, should have sufficiently explained to the Plaintiff about the risks arising therefrom and the method of replacing the general balance before inserting the inserted articles in the institution. However, Defendant B failed to perform such duty. (2) The fundamental cause for which the Plaintiff’s assertion was caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence was not due to the fact that Defendant B failed to perform the duty of care in the process of inserting the inserted articles in the institution, but due to the Defendant’s failure to perform the duty of care in the process of inserting the inserted articles in the institution, and is due to the Defendant’s failure to perform the duty of care.