1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 23,703,631; and (b) KRW 1,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from April 16, 2014 to each of the said money.

1. Basic facts

A. The parties concerned Plaintiff A is a person who received maternity surgery from the Defendant at the “D Council member” operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Council member”), and Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A.

B. On April 15, 2014, Plaintiff A decided to receive maternity surgery as a result of consultation with Defendant Council members with Defendant on April 15, 2014. The following day, Plaintiff A transplants the part of the skin with which there is no hair separated from this part by cutting the two sides of Plaintiff A, who is a public official, to transplant the part of the part of the skin with no hair, and, with respect to the part of the donor, the part of the subsidized part, as seen above, i.e., e., e., the part of the subsidized part (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

(2) At the time of combining whether or not there was a public performance or not, as seen above, there was insufficient time for the skin of the subsidized body, and there was no active increase in the salary and sponsing of the returned body.

C. After the surgery, the Defendant, even though it was difficult for the Defendant to start on May 29, 2014, applied the Plaintiff’s return with terweis / Episurg (in the form of a human body and actively engaged in the formation of fiber cells and call halog) and administered antibiotics, and implemented frhing.

Plaintiff

At the present situation of A, whether the mother was collected at the time of the instant operation, there remains a reflect of the length of 12 cm and the maximum width of 3.5 cm, and there is no hair in the reflect.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, evidence 4-1 to 8, evidence 5-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. As seen earlier, as seen in the Defendant’s liability for damages due to negligence in the operation, it is recognized that the Defendant failed to return the parts of the subsidized parts for reasons that there is insufficient time to avoid the subsidized parts at the time of the operation of the instant case, and that the subsidized parts were not sufficiently increased, and that the Defendant failed to return the subsidized parts and sected parts.