1. The Defendant’s payment of KRW 9,537,572 to Plaintiff A, KRW 11,497,754 to Plaintiff B, and each of the above amounts from January 31, 2011.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) The plaintiffs A (A) performed the visual whitening procedure and the progress thereof (1) around January 2008, the plaintiff A (hereinafter "the plaintiff A") was diagnosed as a failure to prevent detailed uncertainty by the defendant's member of the D (hereinafter "the defendant member of the D") due to the symptoms of the inner shock, and was administered by the defendant on February 19, 2008 and February 20, 2008 on both sides of the eye on both sides.

(B) On March 20, 2008, the Defendant confirmed that the fiber was created on the part of the Plaintiff’s treatment part of the Plaintiff A, and performed visual whitening again on April 15, 2008 and April 16, 2008, and removed the fiber tissues generated on the inside part of both eyes.

(C) On August 8, 2008, the Defendant confirmed that he was a fiber body in the inside and outside of the snow of the left side, and on February 28, 2009, the Defendant engaged in secondary visual whitening on the part of propagation and expansion of blood transfusions generated from the inside of the snow of the left side. On July 23, 2009, when a fiber body was re-produced on the inside of the left eye, the Defendant engaged in three visual whites on that part. On March 4, 2010, when a fiber body was re-produced on the inside of the snow of the left side, the Defendant carried out the fourth visual whites procedure.

(D) On September 25, 2010, Plaintiff A went out of the common view of the left eye, and suspended the progress observation in Defendant A around November 2010. At present, there still remains anti-salkings, dubings, dubing, and dubing symptoms.

(2) On January 24, 2009, Plaintiff B (A) applied to the Defendant’s Council member due to the symptoms of analopic shock, and was under visual whitening procedure from the Defendant on both sides and outside of the eye. Prior to the said procedure, Plaintiff B explained that it is highly likely that the Defendant might have been infected with cryptitis because the Defendant was shot and was under an operation on both sides, and applied to the Defendant Council member to observe the progress by March 18, 2009.

(B) On November 3, 2009, Plaintiff B complained of the inconvenience of snow on the left side by November 3, 2009, and filed with Defendant Council members.