1. As to the medical practice performed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on September 10, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a doctor to operate a sexually off-type department “D” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Plaintiff Hospital”).

B. On June 2, 2015, the Defendant consulted with the Plaintiff’s hospital with “a pair of overlapping parts” and paid KRW 4,400,000 after September 10, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 4.5 million in cash.

and received a dubre correction operation, gal local redisposition and local transplantation operation after payment and multiple overlapping operations.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant surgery”) only snow, decentralization, and decentralization operations.

In accordance with the aging, the euthanasia surrounding the area of the snow pool is weak, and the area of the euthanasia is fluorily fluored by snow, and the local area of the euthanasia is fluor, depending on the distribution of snow bottom, the local removal and the operation of the euthanasia to put it into the area of the mother and child, and this operation is fluorily under the snow, local relocation and local transplantation operation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that it is improper for the defendant to seek the full repayment of the operating expenses and the payment of consolation money of KRW 10 million even though the operation of this case was successful, and sought confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation as the principal lawsuit.

B. The Defendant asserted that, without hearing an explanation from the Plaintiff as to the local redisposition and local transplantation side effects, the Plaintiff got an surgery with the right to force the surgery, and that, in the process of the instant surgery, the Plaintiff did not receive proper measures despite the Defendant’s negligence in the process of the instant surgery, and that there was side effects, such as color, protruding, jutting-out, and protruding, and protruding-out, etc., and that there was no proper solution, the Defendant sought payment of consolation money of KRW 10 million as a counterclaim.

3. Determination

A. One Gutop and the Defendant’s measure against blood transfusion as to whether negligence was recognized in the operation of this case is appropriate after the operation of this case.