1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,468,302 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from April 13, 2016 to May 28, 2019, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the introduction of C, who was a branch of the branch of the Plaintiff, provided consultation on the extension of the basin with the Defendant’s “D Council member” (hereinafter “Defendant’s Council member”) as a member of the Defendant’s “D Council member”).

B. On April 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) extracted local areas from the Plaintiff’s clothes, bucks, etc. and performed bucking operations through local transplantation (hereinafter “the instant operation”); and (b) extracted local areas from the Plaintiff’s arms, bucks, etc.; and (c) affixed a seal thereon.

4. On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff transplanted 400cc local areas on both sides of 15C and 150cc local areas on both sides (the first local transplant). On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff extracted the local areas from the Plaintiff’s uniforms and transplanted 150cc local areas on both sides of 20c and 150cc local areas on both sides (the second local transplant) (the second local transplant), and on June 8, 2016, the Plaintiff divided the regions of 10c local areas on both sides of the Plaintiff.

(Third local transplantation). (C)

Since October 2016, approximately four months after the instant surgery, there were symptoms, such as mospher, color change, fluoring, fluoring, drying, fluoring, and pain, on the Plaintiff’s both sides.

Currently, the Plaintiff's abduction and child-care are formed in the Plaintiff's relics, and there are severe pains, and efforts are needed even when entering the right side.

(hereinafter referred to as the “afterward gift of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entries in B B 1 and 2, the result of the commission of physical appraisal and the commission of complementary appraisal to the E Hospital funeral, the results of the commission of physical appraisal and the fact-finding reply to the F Hospital funeral, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused to the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's act of neglecting the plaintiff to the hotel after first extraction, negligence in the operation of this case, violation of duty to explain, etc.

1. The defendant should send the plaintiff, whose blood transfusion continued after the initial extraction, to the hotel in the defendant's neighboring wife, and receive the plaintiff immediately after the surgery.