1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,080,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 17, 2015 to December 12, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 17, 2015, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant an inner leaple sexual surgery (hereinafter “instant surgery”) from the Defendant in order to resolve an inner marology.

In the instant surgery, the surgery includes an operation to reduce the luminous bones, an operation to reduce the sacrine, and an operation to transplant the sacrine to the inside and outside of the area.

B. As the Plaintiff’s internal awareness was not improved due to the stroke in the process of the instant surgery, the stroke was not improved, and the scoke or the scokes of the left-hand luminous bones and the scokes therefrom were left over due to the stroke or the strokes of the strokes.

In order to resolve the plaintiff's internal name and treat the above pain, it is necessary to repare the optical bones recompact and the niversative leap of the nives.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 through 10, including various numbers, the result of each request for physical appraisal by this court, and the result of the entrustment of medical record appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition of the establishment of the liability for nonperformance, as the Plaintiff had undergone the instant surgery by the Defendant, was not an improvement of the name of the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff was tentatively cut off, even after having undergone the instant surgery by the Defendant. Rather, it is recognized that the luminous part was in a state where the Plaintiff had to undergo the re-operation due to the occurrence of fluorous or irregular oil and its pains.

Thus, if it is objectively acknowledged that the sex surgery aimed at beauty did not reach the original agreement, performance according to the principal agreement cannot be deemed to have been performed, and if there is no evidence to see that there was any other factors than medical malpractice in the lusical agents or lusical agents from the lusical agents or lusical agents from the lusical agents or lusical agents from the lusical negligence, the Defendant is a doctor who performed the instant surgery, and thus, the Defendant did not properly perform its obligations under the medical contract.