1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a person operating the Seo-gu Daejeon District Court “Dan Department.”

B. On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) removed the Defendant’s hospital from the two sides; and (b) concluded a medical contract with respect to hydro-point artificial insemination; (c) on October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with respect to hydro-point alcohol; and (d) on October 20, 2015, the following day, the Plaintiff performed the Plaintiff’s surgery with each of the above methods on the Plaintiff’s opport (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion was due to the negligence of the plaintiff's fault in the course of the operation of this case by misunderstanding the number of artificial insemination plants on the plaintiff's quantity, which led to the plaintiff's continued loss of the plaintiff's ability, and there was a symptoms that it is difficult to see in his daily life, so the defendant is obliged to pay 20 million won as property damage, such as medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff in treating the above symptoms, and 10 million won as consolation money.

In addition, since the Defendant did not explain to the Plaintiff the risk of the instant surgery and the post-treatment, it is obligated to pay 5 million won as consolation money.

B. Determination 1: (a) it is recognized that each of the medical records dated November 10, 2015 at the Chungcheongnamnam University Hospital, F Hospital’s first day on December 21, 2015, and G Hospital’s first day on March 9, 2016, stating the following: (b) whether the instant surgery violated the duty of care; (c) the statement on the evidence Nos. 4 and 7; and (d) the overall purport of the argument as to the E Hospital’s physical examination; and (d) the copy of each of the medical records as of March 1, 2016 at the time of the instant surgery, stating that “I wish to conduct a close inspection because I had no visual vision and there is no visual symptoms after the instant surgery; and (d) the Plaintiff complained of light or light that the Plaintiff might have shown to have a little eye and snow, and that it appears to have a little eye.