1. Between February 10, 2014 and July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) executed to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. On June 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) moved to the “D Dental” department located in Busan Shipping Daegu C, which was operated by the Plaintiff for the purpose of the crypt operation on the part of the Plaintiff; (b) began with the Defendant’s 26 procedure on the part of the Plaintiff, and completed the first procedure on September 26, 2013 (hereinafter “instant first procedure”).

B. On December 1, 2013, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff Hospital”) opened the “Fache Department” in Jin-gu Busan (hereinafter “Plaintiff Hospital”).

C. After the instant first procedure, the Defendant constantly complained of the scamtains of the powder that was planted by the Defendant. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff removed the eggs planted to the Defendant at the Plaintiff Hospital, and re-scam the eggs on the part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant re-scam”) No. 26, and completed the procedure by installing the scrap scrap on the part of the Plaintiff on July 9, 2014.

After the re-medical procedure of this case, the defendant appealed from chins and Escopic scopic scopic scopic scopics.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul in the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) had no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s medical practice that the Plaintiff performed to the Defendant from February 10, 2014 to July 9, 2014. As such, in relation to the above medical practice, the Plaintiff does not bear any liability for damages against the Defendant. 2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff would be punished for two hours at the time of the re-treatment of the instant case, and removed the existing space procking by using the construction section, which was unreasonable. In the process of the long-term procedure, it was unreasonable for the Defendant’s left-hand spons, and thus, the Defendant had the burden of proof on the part of the Defendant.

The fact that the defendant suffered from the defendant is negligent in the plaintiff's procedure at the time of the re-treatment of this case.