1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 8,66,300 among the Plaintiff’s counterclaim and KRW 5,66,300 among the Plaintiff’s counterclaim, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 23,200 on February 23, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 25, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) went to an emergency room operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant hospital”); and (b) was conducted in the said hospital on December 29, 2012, by taking over the ice ice scambling on the left-hand scambling of the simple framework of the executives who were in charge of the left-hand scambling; and (c) was conducted by the said hospital on December 29, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as “first operation”). (b)

On October 16, 2015, the Plaintiff continued to be hospitalized after receiving metal plate removal surgery at the instant hospital. However, on October 17, 2015, the Plaintiff continued to be hospitalized in the instant hospital, based on the mouth inserted in the 4th balth square pond from the first mouth near the upper mouth on October 17, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second aggregate”) C.

On October 19, 2015, the instant hospital carried out an eropologic typology and metal plate, and an epologic typology with respect to the second frame of the Plaintiff’s second frame.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second operation”) d.

From October 15, 2015 to October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,783,610 out of the patient’s medical expenses to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the result of the medical record appraisal of the D Association of this court, the result of fact inquiry, the result of the court's request for physical examination of E Hospital Head, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the principal lawsuit

A. In treating the Plaintiff, it is appropriate for the medical personnel of the instant hospital to remove metal plates after the lapse of 12 to 18 months after the first operation. The metal board resulted in a temporary decline in the removal of the Plaintiff’s shock frame, and even in the form where the Plaintiff was found in the body of the body, the Plaintiff performed an operation to remove metal plates at an early stage, and the Plaintiff did not take measures to protect the operation department by means of a fixed substitute or slot after removing metal interiors.