1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, who is a sexual surgery, was signed by the Plaintiff on the written consent from the Plaintiff before performing the first surgery, including the surgery name, the surgery division, the method of operation, the general side effects of the surgery, etc., but the written consent does not contain any explanation related to the alteration of the co-shaped due to infection caused by the cosexual surgery, and there is no explanation about the side effects of the surgery and the explanation about the aftermath, etc., in light of the fact that Defendant B, who was signed by the Plaintiff in the written consent from the surgery, cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the duty to explain to the Plaintiff, and 2) there is a need for stability of 4 weeks after the first surgery, so it is possible to increase the possibility of infection by the repetitive surgery if the second surgery is performed before the elapse of that period, and therefore, Defendant B cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the duty to explain to the Plaintiff properly due to the above violation of the duty to explain.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the breach of the duty to explain or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hyundai Marine”)

A. The legal nature of the victim’s direct right to claim pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is that the insurer concurrently takes over the insured’s obligation to compensate for damages against the victim, and the victim’s right to claim damages against the insurer is not the alteration of the insured’s right to claim insurance against the insurer, or

However, the insurer's liability for damages to the victim is only limited.