D. Dental treatment is performed from September 30, 2016 to January 30, 2018 between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a dentist who operates the D dental clinic located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff hospital”), and the Defendant is a patient who was treated by the Plaintiff hospital from September 30, 2016 to January 30, 2018.

B. On September 30, 2016, the Defendant was diagnosed with an anti-pathal certificate, as the main appeal to the Plaintiff’s hospital, that the Ma12-Ma22 was found to have been laid down.

Plaintiff

At the time of birth to the hospital, the defendant was showing the Mafama Mafa and Mafama Mafama Maba and Ma25 Mafa, and Mafa Mafa Maba Ma23.

C. On October 5, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) confirmed that the Defendant’s Mala Ma22 was deprived; (b) discovered the relevant infant on the ground of a perfore certificate; and (c) installed the Mala Ma Ma Ma12-24 in the Mean from November 2016 to December 201, the Plaintiff laid down the relevant infant on the ground of a perfore certificate.

On June 24, 2017, the Defendant complained of the receipt of Ma24, and the Plaintiff, on November 8, 2017, installed the Defendant’s Ma24, 25 Mean in order to extend the Brazil.

Since November 15, 2017, the Defendant complained of the pains and starting symptoms of Ma24, 25 Maternia from November 15, 2017

Accordingly, from November 17, 2017 to January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant’s instant treatment (hereinafter “instant treatment”), including the treatment that the Plaintiff provided to the Defendant from September 30, 2016 to January 30, 2018.

E. Since June 2018, the Defendant complained of inconvenience in treating food, and received a dental care and a dental surgery on the part of the E dental hospital, by transferring the food to the E dental hospital.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. After the Plaintiff’s installation of the headline to the Defendant, the Plaintiff performed a field treatment due to the outbreak of infection, and thereafter, the Defendant may be infected.