1. In relation to the treatment at members D in Pyeongtaek-si from June 8, 2016 to June 15, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is an oriental medical doctor who operates an oriental medical clinic (hereinafter “Plaintiff hospital”) with the trade name “Daehan” in Pyeongtaek-si C, and the Defendant is a person who has been treated by the Plaintiff hospital.

B. On June 8, 2016, the Defendant complained of the Huduri Certificate, and visited the Plaintiff hospital, and the Plaintiff provided the hysia (i.e., the hysia) treatment.

Since June 9, 2016, June 10, 2016, and June 14, 2016, and June 15, 2016, the Plaintiff provided each intrusion treatment.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant treatment” in combination with all of the above treatment.

During the period from June 20, 2016 to June 24, 2016, the Defendant hospitalized in the hospital on the ground of “the hurgical pain and the radioactive on the right bridge” and received a preservation treatment.

From June 29, 2016 to 2017

9.6. During the period of June, the F Hospital received a preservation treatment in the future on the ground of the F Hospital’s “hurgical and low lurgical treatment.”

마. 피고는 2016. 11. 1. G병원에서 ‘우측 엉치~허벅지 땡기고 아픔 증상’ 등을 이유로 한달간 약물치료를 받았고 신경 차단술을 시행받았다.

In addition, on March 28, 2017, the Defendant was hospitalized for 15 days at the right side of the instant medical treatment at G Hospital after being diagnosed with bed and feld felb, felb, and farming.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 22, the parties' assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The Plaintiff did not violate the duty of care in the course of the instant treatment, and cannot be deemed to have any negligence on the Plaintiff’s medical treatment.

In addition, there is no causal relationship between the symptoms of salary and hepatitis arising after a considerable period of time from the instant procedure and the instant procedure.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is not liable for damages to the Defendant regarding the instant procedure.

B. The Plaintiff is performing the instant procedure to the Defendant.