1. Defendant C’s KRW 4,572,070 as well as 5% per annum from April 19, 2016 to October 8, 2019, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the case is a method for treating the purchased pharmaceutical room by giving constant stimulations to the Defendant C, an oriental medical doctor, for beauty purposes, including the improvement of skin force and the removal of oil, on three occasions from March 5, 2016 to April 19, 2016, when the Plaintiff knew of the details as indicated in the following table: (a) marketing procedure is conducted by the Defendant C, which is an oriental medical doctor, for the purpose of beauty; and (b) marketing procedure is a method for treating the relevant pharmaceutical room, in which the body naturally melts the drug from the body after a certain period expires; and (c) deducting the patient from the skin caused by the disease.

In addition, the fact that he/she has undergone a pharmacological (malcination) operation (hereinafter referred to as "the instant operation") shall be recognized by taking into account the following facts: (a) the parties do not have any dispute between them; or (b) the statements of Eul 3 and 16 (including numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the fact that he/she has undergone the instant operation as a whole

On March 5, 2016, 2016, e-mail procedures, e-mail procedures, e-mail procedures, e-mail procedures, e-mail procedures, e-mail procedures, e-mail procedures, and e-mail procedures, e-mail procedures, e-mail procedures, e-mail procedures, and e-mail procedures, as the left-hand side of the e-mail and face surface inserting the e-mail and e-mail procedures on March 29, 2016.

2. The Plaintiff asserted as to Defendant B, as the party who entered into a medical treatment contract with the Plaintiff, or the employer of Defendant C, that the Plaintiff is liable for the Plaintiff’s damages arising from the instant medical treatment (as jointly with Defendant C).

However, as seen earlier, while the Plaintiff directly received the instant medical procedure from Defendant C, it is insufficient to recognize the factual basis for the claim (Defendant B’s status) as alleged in the Plaintiff’s evidence, including the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 17 (Recording) in light of the respective descriptions of No. 4-1 and No. 2, which make it possible for the Defendants, an oriental medical doctor, to know that they were in the same trade relationship, not an employer/user relationship. This part of the Plaintiff’s domestic affairs is insufficient to recognize the cause for the claim as alleged.