1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,825,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 1, 2011 to August 19, 2015.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the claim was conducted by the Defendant’s Dasung surgery (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). The Plaintiff sought damages for medical negligence from the Defendant on the ground that only the aftermatha was caused by the 4th loss, inception, inception, inception, inception, inception, and inception, without obtaining the effect of the cosmetic improvement expected through the surgery.

2. Progress of the treatment of the plaintiff;

A. On October 31, 201, in order to correct and improve the perception that the Plaintiff, as a postponed, has a long face and protruding the upper part of the face, was consulted at the Defendant Hospital on the surgery, etc., and the Defendant was given the Plaintiff the right to engage in the so-called malicious surgery combining the poppy surgery and protruding surgery, and announced the Plaintiff that it may be accompanied by the satch, luminous bones, and satch surgery.

B. On November 16, 201, the Plaintiff consented to such an operation plan, and the Defendant, on November 16, 201, performed the surgery and the reduction of the threshold to the Plaintiff.

The defendant's these procedures are premised on the compromise with the dental hospital, which was to achieve the effects of cosmetic improvement, such as protruding-out correction, etc., by performing the first malkic surgery before the implementation of the malkic surgery.

C. The Plaintiff received correction at the Dental Hospital at the intervals of one month after receiving the above procedure at the Defendant Hospital, and the Defendant did not appeal to the symptoms in special circumstances, except where the Plaintiff complained of the infection on November 25, 201.

However, as the cosmetic improvement effect expected to elapse six months after the surgery did not appear and the inconvenience for the part of the surgery continued, on June 19, 2012, the defendant raised an objection to the result of the surgery, such as raising an issue of the tentative name to the defendant and inquiring about the marry surgery.

On July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by a dental hospital of the Seoul National University as a non-conformity, an internal name, and an internal name.

Recognition evidence: there is no dispute.