1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from November 19, 2007 to May 2, 2012.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 11, 2005, the Defendant issued a medical examination and treatment report, such as the Defendant’s franchis surgery, and the progress of the franchising visa (1) from C’s KRW 11, 2005 to April 4, 2005; from March 23, 2006 to September 13, 2006; from June 5, 2007 to September 28, 2007; from February 11, 2008 to April 15, 2009 to October 21, 2010 to September 21, 2014 (the period from February 23, 2006 to September 28, 2007).

From January 2007 to May 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the above member of the Council with high blood pressure, blood transfusion, and urology, and used the relevant medicine by prescribing the relevant medicine.

(2) On December 3, 2007 at the D Hospital operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff Hospital”), the Defendant received each flut operation on the part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant fluoral operation”), and linked the Plaintiff with each flut operation on the part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant fluoral operation”), on April 30, 2008, by connecting the fluoral operation on the part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant fluoral operation”), by connecting the fluoral operation on October 27, 2008, by connecting the fluoral operation on April 27, 2009, by connecting the fluoral operation on the part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant fluoral operation”).

(3) At the time of the establishment of each of the aforesaid organs, the Plaintiff sufficiently informed the Defendant of any sudden, mental, medical, medicine, food, etc., known to the Defendant, with respect to any over-cover response, etc. in relation to the Defendant’s internal, mental, medicine, food, etc.

"A letter of consent to an art operation stating the content of " was signed by presenting it."

(4) On June 22, 2011, the Defendant complained of the Plaintiff that there was an pain in ging, and the Plaintiff considered it as a simple gingule that was caused by the pressure of food pressure, etc., and taken measures to revise the form of the relic.

However, even after that, the defendant's ging of the defendant continues to be lring, and as a result, the plaintiff continued to do so, July 201.