1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 20, 2012 to August 10, 2016.

1. Evidence 【Evidence】1-1 through 3, A2, A3-1 through 3, A4-1 through 9, and the result of this court’s physical appraisal and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff, on the ground of symptoms of the trium of the Mama body, injecting the local area, sought to pay back the Dawon (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) operated by the Defendant, and the Defendant hospital intended to supplement the part of the Mama body, which excessively injected the local area at another hospital, and to implement the e-mail (hereinafter “instant procedure”) on the Mama body.

B. From June 20, 2012 to December 26, 2012, the Defendant Hospital performed the instant procedure six times as follows and the instant smart hosting (on July 18, 2012) on the following occasions.

Temporary procedures on June 20, 2012: The termination of the procedures on July 16, 2012 for local transplantation on July 20, 2012, 2012 between local transplantation and U.S., local transplantation on August 3, 2012, and Ethama Stockholm on September 24, 2012.

C. On October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) had been infected with salt, and (b) had been admitted to the Defendant Hospital; and (c) the Defendant Hospital recommended all of it to be a university hospital.

On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff visited the sexual surgery at Atol University Hospital and was diagnosed as reaction to foreign substances. On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a class of occupation (math) and the Mabotitis for the cosmetic surgery at the Etol University Syn University Hospital on May 8, 2014. The Plaintiff was diagnosed as an injury disease for the purpose of cosmetic sexual surgery at the Etol University Syn University Hospital, and was diagnosed as a class of occupation (math) and the Mabotitis on May 21, 2014.

E. The Plaintiff is showing symptoms of the origin and transformation of the math part, the balth part of the 2nd part, the balth part, the balth part, the balth part of the arms bridge, the abandonment of the body, and the balth part of the body.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. (1) Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion is in breach of the duty of explanation (A) the Defendant hospital’s assertion only verified where to provide consultation for the determination of whether to perform an operation.