The defendant's KRW 8,00,000 and its interest to the plaintiff shall be 5% per annum from September 1, 2017 to November 5, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was under the 2012 pairy surgery, and was under the 2014 pairy re-operation and visual re-operation.

B. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff visited and consulted the Defendant’s sexual surgery in order to correct the excessively exposed parts of the eye head after the visual operation.

C. On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff received restoration of the front urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgicals from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

On March 12, 2016, the defendant appealed on the left-hand red father and salt card at the operation department, and the defendant injected Triambol on the left-hand part of the operation department, and additionally administered Triambol injection on March 26, 2016 on April 2, 2016.

On May 7, 2016, the Defendant administered the stem cell line to the Plaintiff.

E. On September 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was re-exploited by the Defendant to restore the front left-hand snow again, and was given an injection on December 2, 2016.

F. At present, the Plaintiff still remains a reflect of 1 cm on both sides of both sides.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-1, and Eul evidence 2-2 as a result of the court's entrustment of physical examination to the Director of D Hospital, the result of this court's entrustment of medical examination to the Director of E Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff undergone the instant surgery to improve the excessive exposure of eye head due to excessive feet, and failed to achieve the purpose of the surgery after the instant surgery.

Ultimately, the Defendant is liable for damages due to nonperformance, as the Defendant failed to perform its obligations under the instant surgery contract.

B. After undergoing the instant surgery, the Plaintiff left a reflector of the shape of the gale in front of the snow. This was the Defendant’s diagnosis of the outbreak of salt around March 12, 2016, but did not treat the malecopic, which was a treatment for the chest, without treating the malecopic, and administered the malecopic malecopic excessively.