1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a dental clinic operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) with the main lake and marsh (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”); (b) 42, 43, and 44, a dental clinic (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) with the heart of dental infection, which took place on August 12, 2014.

B. On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff, at the Defendant Hospital’s home, conducted CT photography for the fluor examination, and the 41th dental frame was completely lost.

Accordingly, the defendant explained to the plaintiff about the necessity of the eradication of 41 times taking into account the aftermath of the crym operation, and on September 1, 2014, the plaintiff agreed to do so and launched 41 times.

C. The Plaintiff, by September 18, 2014, did not visit the Defendant Hospital after having installed and adjusted a temporary mold, and received counseling on September 16, 2015 and October 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that even though the plaintiff's status was unable to perform the propagation operation at an individual council member, such as the defendant, the defendant did not properly explain it, and the defendant neglected to explain it, and caused a serious disability and a certificate of challenge, etc. to the plaintiff, and the expenses of KRW 25 million are expected to be borne by the university hospital. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above damages.

In the case of the plaintiff, it is necessary to conduct a crypt transplant accompanied by bones transplant in the case of the plaintiff, and each description of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 is not sufficient for the defendant to conduct the above procedure.

No. 41 without the consent of the plaintiff, it is difficult to recognize that the child was unreasonable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is groundless.