In this regard, after the plaintiff appealed, the claim was reduced to claim 26,924,900 won for active damages caused by the instant surgery, and 10,000 won for consolation money for mental damages.

Therefore, the scope of adjudication on the case is limited to the plaintiff's active damage and the claim for mental damage.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance renders a letter No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance 9 through No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

3. Parts to be dried;

D. Whether a person violates the duty to explain (1) cosmetic surgery is performed for the purpose of obtaining or increasing the individual aesthetic satisfaction of the appearance of the patient. Since it is very weak in urgency or inevitable compared to other medical acts for the purpose of treating disease, a doctor who is requested to perform the procedure must carefully select and recommend procedures, etc. to realize the client's specific result on the basis of the following professional knowledge, which is sufficiently careful about the client's complaint settlement about the appearance of the patient and the specific result desired by the client. The client's need for the procedure in question, degree of difficulty, method of procedure, how the appearance of the patient changes to a certain degree through the procedure in question, the risk of occurrence, side effects, etc. are considered as the client's gender, age, occupation, experience of cosmetic surgery, etc., and thus, the client's need or risk is sufficiently compared.