1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 2,151,612 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from March 27, 2015 to August 10, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a doctor who operates the “D Council” in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

B. On July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was admitted to the Defendant Hospital, went through the Stockholm surgery from both the Defendant and the Defendant. Since the Stockholm injection, the Plaintiff began to cause pressure and heatation on the left side of the arche.

The plaintiff continued to observe the above symptoms on the ground that the symptoms were originally included in the Stockholm injection.

C. The Plaintiff visited the Defendant Hospital and was prescribed by the Defendant for the medical control as the symptoms continued on the following day ( July 8, 2014).

However, despite the above-mentioned provision, the above-mentioned provision spreads to the side, voltage, heat, and red, and the pain continued each time, the Plaintiff was in an emergency at around 11:00 on July 9, 2014.

The medical professionals of the Gangnam-gu Hospital had always prescribed the system to the Plaintiff, and conducted the x-ray test, taking into account the possibility of the infection and culitis caused by the infection of the Switzerland, with the view to the possibility of the infection and culitis.

On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Gangnamsung Hospital on July 10, 2014, and was hospitalized from the National Assembly members of the Franchi Department E located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul (17 days) from July 10, 2014 to July 26, 2014 (17 days).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 4, 9, 10 evidence, Eul's 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The occurrence of liability for damages and limitation 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as indicated in the above facts, namely, ① the Plaintiff (limited to the Plaintiff’s admission to the Defendant Hospital for the cosmetic purposes and did not have any particular error on the left part of the arche procedure before the Defendant’s Stockholm procedure, and ②.