The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal

1. The purport of the claim;

1. Case summary and judgment

A. Dental medicine Plaintiff received a request for dental treatment from the Defendant from October 2016 to January 17, 2018, and the fact that he/she performed the treatment, such as 4,848,200 won (the Defendant agreed to pay the above treatment expenses at the time of completion of the pertinent dental treatment, and the Plaintiff’s completion of the above treatment at the time of January 17, 2018) is recognized by taking account of the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) there is no evidence between the parties, or the overall purport of oral proceedings, as a whole, on the descriptions or videos of evidence Nos. 1 through 5.

As long as the Plaintiff, who is a mandatory, managed the pertinent case’s delegated affairs (entrustment of treatment) and the period of maturity for the agreement on the claim for remuneration, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delayed damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 1, 2020 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, excluding KRW 50,000,000, the Plaintiff was already paid to the Plaintiff out of the above treatment costs, and from February 1, 2020 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the degree of damage or pain caused by the plaintiff's defective treatment was serious, and thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

As a result, the medical obligation that a doctor owes to a patient is not an obligation but an obligation to take necessary and appropriate medical measures in light of the current medical level with the duty of due care of a good manager for the treatment of a patient. Therefore, even if the patient fulfilled the above duty of care, he/she may claim medical expenses even if the disease was not treated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da15031, Jul. 27, 1993; 2001Da52568, Nov. 9, 2001). In this case, the Plaintiff’s treatment led to side effect or aggravation of symptoms as alleged by the Defendant, as a result of the Plaintiff’s treatment.