1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 26, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s operation C (hereinafter “instant case”).

After receiving special management from the defendant on the same day, the defendant received special management on the same day, and received treatment after being diagnosed that the defendant had been subject to management by the defendant's employees on the last day of the same month, and after being diagnosed that the defendant had been subject to management by the university hospital, etc., the defendant was subject to management. This is based on the illegal act of the defendant or the defendant, such as using the cosmetic or medical device which was not verified by the defendant, using the ample and high frequency, and using the illegal ample, which is a medicine, and thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate for damages arising from general illegal liability or user liability. In addition, since the plaintiff said that the purpose of management of the skin was the job interview, there is a default liability due to the failure to

2. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment, or according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 201, the plaintiff was subject to secondary management by the defendant at the part-time shop operated by the defendant on April 26, 2013, and was managed by the defendant's employee D on the 30th of the same month, and the plaintiff was subject to secondary management by the defendant on May 24, 2013.

7. The fact that until September 2, 2008, the Defendant received medical treatment as epidemitis at a Joseon University Hospital, and on March 16, 2015, the same year;

5.1.3 times at the instant skin shop, even if it is not a medical person, a violation of the Medical Service Act with the content that the Plaintiff was engaged in medical practice by engaging in an act of pressureing the Plaintiff’s face, salvine, etc. using salkes, etc., even though it is not a medical person. However, even though the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone requires the Plaintiff to conduct a physical appraisal as to whether the cause of salkeitis infection diagnosed by a university hospital, etc. was caused by negligence in the course of the skin management, the Plaintiff’s ability to prove any further.