1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,139,965 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 14, 2015 to November 25, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff complained of symptoms and pains of dental appliances established in king on July 9, 2014, and the Defendant’s dental clinic 2 operated by Cental. As a result of the Plaintiff’s examination, the Defendant diagnosed the Plaintiff as a chronic infection of the second left and the second Daegu, the third Daegu, and the third Daegu, the third, the third, the third, the third, the fourth, the third, the third, the fourth, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, and the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the third, the fourth, and the third, py.

B. (1) On July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for the galute symptoms on the upper right part of the mouth (consecting part) to the lower right part of the mouth (consecting part) on the lower right part of July 24, 2014; 2) The Defendant prescribed drugs (Slono and Neurton) on the lower right part, but the symptoms are not improved; 3) the Plaintiff’s diagnosis on August 1, 2014, as the result of the medical examination conducted at the bad outside of the North Korean University Hospital at the North Korean University Hospital at the lower right part, with a serious galute.

C. As a result of physical examination, the Plaintiff appears to have a sense of irrecognism over the left-hand side due to symptoms of irregnosis damage among three parts of 3 parts of 3 parts of 3 parts of 3 parts of 3 parts of 3 parts of 3 parts of 3 parts of 3 parts of 3 parts of 4 parts of 5, and there is no dispute over the situation where it is difficult to expect her regncy, and there is no possibility that her sense of her sense of irregnism will return to the normal conditions (based on recognition). The purport of the entire pleadings is as follows.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant’s negligence in the process of anesthesia in order to give up the Plaintiff’s pawn, resulting in the Plaintiff’s anesthesia even after the anesthesia continued, and caused damage to the Plaintiff’s pawnal by negligence in the process of pawning.