1. On August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) launched the first part of the Defendant’s left part (No. 24) on the Defendant’s left part; and (b) laid the fluort.

1. Basic facts

A. The pertinent Plaintiff is a person working as a dentist at the Dental clinic located in Gwangju Dong-gu, Gwangju, and the Defendant is as follows.

As stated in Paragraph 1, a patient who has taken a part of the first part of the left upper part of the plaintiff (No. 24, hereinafter referred to as the "the instant part") and received treatment to plant the flag at the same time after cutting the flag.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant treatment”). B.

Details of treatment, such as the instant treatment, are as follows: (a) the details of treatment, such as the instant treatment, performed against the Defendant by the Plaintiff.

(2) On August 1, 2012, the details of the date of treatment are suspected of being special boomed or satched, extracted on August 1, 2012, on August 10, 2012, the fifth day of the fluencation coloned fluent fluencing on August 14, 2012, and extracted on September 13, 2012, for disinfection on September 21, 2012, and sating on November 3, 2012, that there is a little number of salt symptoms before the relevant fluencation.

C. After the instant procedure, the Defendant, at the time of the instant procedure, was organized on two occasions at a dental hospital of the Jeonnam University around the franchisium, and on December 2012, 2012. As a result of the first organizational test, the cause of the said symptoms was “the proliferation of chlodyphal dysium,” but as a result of the second organizational test, the second organizational test revealed as “the flusium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium.”

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsured Facts, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, results of request for appraisal of medical records by the Korean Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, before the instant procedure, did not explain to the Defendant the side effects or risks that may arise from the instant procedure, infringed the Defendant’s right to self-determination, and carried out the instant procedure against the Defendant’s will. The instant procedure was conducted, and the ging that was discovered after the instant procedure, and the ging that was discovered in salting and marculatory tissues, and removed the ging that was planted by the instant procedure to treat this.

Therefore, the Plaintiff.