1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff, a dentist, received Boothxa procedure on both sides of the inner part of the Defendant for the improvement of the symptoms of this malicious instrument.

The Defendant injected 10uit Stockholm on each side of the 20uit and both sides, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

(2) On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff sent symptoms to the left side after the first Stockholm procedure (hereinafter “1th Stockholm procedure”). On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff sent 1.7 unit Stockholm to the lower part of the left side for the purpose of improving the said symptoms (hereinafter “2th Stockholm procedure”). C. the Defendant sent 1.7 unit Stockholm to the Plaintiff on June 15, 2015.

On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff complained of symptoms that the left snow of the Defendant hospital had not been completely cut off and that the relevant mouth return to the right side of the Plaintiff. D.

On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff was exposed to C Hospital and was subject to the RI shooting and the psychotropic function test.

As a result of the RoI's inspection, there was an opinion on the national freshosis on the left-hand side of the brain 7 and 8 customs subdivision of the relevant brain pathy, and this was confirmed to be presumed to be a emerculation of the left-hand side, and it was diagnosed that there was an incomplete emerculation disorder on the left-hand side as a result of the RoI'

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's liability for damages

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the negligence in the procedure occurred two times after the Stockholm procedure received from the Defendant, which was caused by the Defendant’s negligence.

However, according to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the result of each request for the appraisal of medical records to the D Association of this Court, the Defendant conducted the Stockholm procedure to the Plaintiff according to appropriate capacity, and as seen below, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was at fault in connection with the Stockholm procedure, since the Plaintiff’s euthanasia was caused by cryptism.