1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 8,000,000 with respect thereto to the Plaintiff and Defendant B from November 16, 2013, and Defendant C from November 2013 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of a physical examination entrusted to the Director of the District University Hospital:

At the time of October 2010, Defendant B had a doctor who had been operating EM in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and Defendant C had been employed by Defendant B.

B. On October 15, 2010, the Plaintiff visited the above Erypt for the purpose of beauty and received counseling from Defendant B, and received a bad faith surgery from Defendant C.

C. Defendant C explained to the Plaintiff the possibility of damage to the sub-paculation due to the bruptic surgery, and explained the possibility of 3-6 months to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is suffering from permanent damage to trine spaths due to the spawal surgery and is at the current state of lowering the function of the spawal spawal, and lowering the spawal level.

2. The Plaintiff seeks compensation against the Defendants on the ground of violation of the duty to explain.

Since cosmetic surgery has very weak characteristics of urgency and inevitability compared to other medical acts aimed at treating a disease, a medical doctor requested to do so shall explain the necessity, difficulty, method of surgery, anticipated risk of occurrence, side effects, etc. in detail so that the client can fully understand the necessity of the surgery and the risk of occurrence, so that the client may choose whether to undergo a surgery by fully comparing the necessity or risk of the surgery.

However, according to the above facts of recognition, Defendant C, who performed the Plaintiff, did not explain that it could be permanent or harmful to the function of a work on a permanent basis while explaining the possibility of negoical damage due to the risk of the negoical surgery and explaining it to the temporary location of 3 to 6 months.

In addition, the defendant who had consulted with the plaintiff.