1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff A KRW 18,017,157, KRW 300,000 to the Plaintiff B, and KRW 200,00 to the Plaintiff C and each of the above amounts.

Basic Facts

Plaintiff

A is a person who received medical treatment at the F dental clinic located in Busan Jung-gu (hereinafter “instant hospital”), and Plaintiff B is a wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C is a child of Plaintiff A.

The Defendant is a dentist operating the instant hospital.

Plaintiff

A was first brought to the instant hospital on June 29, 2015. At that time, A showed symptoms, such as the dynamics of the 35th (the 2nd head of the Haak left-hand) and 37th (the second head of the Haak-gu) and chronic chronitis.

On July 31, 2015, the Defendant: (a) launched Plaintiff A’s 35, 37, and 27, 35, and 36; (b) performed crypting surgery on the part of the dental infant; and (c) performed crypting surgery on the part of the dental infant No. 27, 35, and 37.

(hereinafter “instant treatment”). From August 3, 2015, Plaintiff A complained of symptoms damaged to the content that the part of the instant treatment does not cover anesthesia from August 3, 2015. From November 2, 2015 to November 2, 2015, Plaintiff A complained of symptoms to the effect that anesthesia is not exposed to anesthesia.

On November 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) launched Plaintiff A’s 12 pharma; and (b) performed a crym operation and a cryming surgery on the part of A, 12 and 17 popa.

On January 22, 2016, the Defendant performed the procedure of attaching a cream in the body of the Plaintiff A No. 25 and No. 26.

Plaintiff

A was provided medical treatment by April 18, 2017, after receiving a diagnosis of the neutism from a dental hospital of Busan National University on August 16, 2016, which was conducted by the examination of the neutism, but remains due to a neutronological disorder above the neutronological sense of the neutronological neutism in the left-hand side.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images of Gap's evidence 1 through 3, 5, 6, 9, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the court's entrustment of physical examination to the high-university uniform hospital, each of the above evidences, which revealed the existence of negligence in the course of the instant procedure, as a result of the occurrence of damages liability as a whole, is the fact of recognition of the existence of negligence in the process of the instant procedure.