1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 18, 2016, the Plaintiff received a documentary operation from the Defendant, a medical doctor, to undergo a documentary operation.

(hereinafter “instant procedure”). (b)

The Plaintiff received, at another hospital, a co-mmetric surgery before 15 years prior to the instant surgery, a local transplant in the face part of eight years prior to the instant surgery, a four-year local transplantation in the face part of four years prior to the instant surgery, acurf on July 3, 2015, a local inhaled injection on December 2015, a local decomposition injection on July 18, 2016, and a partr care, etc. after the instant surgery.

[Evidence Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant’s medical negligence on the instant treatment caused bad results (e.g., ice softens, ftens, and local organizations were destroyed, snow bottom, excessive oil, chins, chins, guns, etc.).

The Defendant did not explain to the Plaintiff the possibility of adverse consequences (influence) arising from the instant treatment.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the facts as seen earlier of negligence and causation and the evidence as seen earlier, and the following circumstances that can be recognized by the result of the physical examination commission to the Chief of the Seoul National University Hospital branch of this Court, it is difficult to see that the instant procedure resulted in bad results (dive actions) or that the Defendant’s medical negligence is recognized. (A) No extraordinary ples, guns, horses, etc., of the entire face at the time of the examination.

(a)(b)the choice of the Cathoe is judged to be appropriate and there is no problem in time;

(3) The plaintiff's face is properly inserted. (c) It is the plaintiff's face of the plaintiff's face.

[3.(5)No less than six times a face-related procedure identified as material with respect to spawnosis, which may affect all procedures (d).

(e) subjective inconveniences may continue;

No physical disability is anticipated (f.g.) (f. 2). As seen earlier, the Defendant’s instant treatment is bad for the Plaintiff.