1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) from around 2011, from the point of view operated by the Defendant, the Plaintiff began to undergo treatment by having four fluorries and twenty-four trokes to undergo treatment. There were no treatment content or Jindo, and there were several arguments with the Defendant on the part of the Defendant. Around November 2013, 200, 12 fluort of the front fluor has been produced too short, and the next gluor was generated more than once in a day, as well as several glusiums, and glusiums were generated. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to provide treatment due to lack of fluorous ability, and thus, failed to return treatment fees, and failed to do so. (ii) Through the above process, the Plaintiff made a fluor and fluor, which did not change the face of fluor and fluor, but did not change the content of the fluoring treatment.

Accordingly, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to properly treat the scrap metal and treatment, but the defendant refused re-medical treatment and treatment on September 15, 2015.

3 The plaintiff, a dentist, caused a ging pain and ging disease as a result of the defendant's wrong treatment and treatment procedure, and eventually, caused considerable mental and monetary damage, such as changing the face of face, etc., and the defendant shall compensate all of the plaintiff's damage.

B. The Plaintiff’s statement of No. 3, which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s assertion, is merely a repetition of the Plaintiff’s assertion and does not believe it as it is, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the result of the medical record appraisal conducted by the Korea Dental Association of this Court, the Defendant’