Jeonju-si United Kingdom of America

Attorney Lee Sung-hoon (Attorney Lee Sung-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonju-si United Kingdom of America

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the defendant shall be 8,200,000 won to the plaintiff and shall be 26 October 2011 to the plaintiff.

ter 5% per annum from the date of service of the copy of the application for modification of the lawsuit in this case to the date of full payment.

The amount of 20% per annum shall be paid.

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is a dentist who operated the "○○ Department", and the plaintiff is a person who has undergone a crym operation from the defendant in the above dental clinic.

B. On September 28, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) taken photographs of pnoma X-ray by visiting the above dental plant; (b) obtained consultation from the Defendant regarding the plan for the procedure of the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the process for the process for the process for the process for the process for the process for the process for the process for the process; (c) sent the 1, 2, 300 square meters on the face; and (d) one, 411 square meters (4m in diameter, 11m in length; 13m in length); and (d) one square sheet (4m in diameter and 13m in length) on the face of the 411 square meters; and (e) three croding.

(B) 411 sets up 411 sets for the second left-hand part of the upper left-hand part.

(C) Division 1 and 2 of the Haak left-hand-hand side is composed of 511 fluort (5 m in diameter, 11.5 m in length).

D) On the 1st, Daegu, 1, 2 Corresponding on the right side of the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (a) laid down one 513 fluoring column (five meters in diameter, 13 meters in length); (b) laid down one 513 fluoring column on the 1st, Daegu 1; and (c) removed 411 fluoring column on the 13th, Daegu 201 fluoring column; and (d) removed 10 fluoring on January 5, 201, the Defendant removed 10 fluoring on the 14th, 201 fluoring column; and (c) removed 10 fluoring on the 13th, 201 fluoring column on the 14th, 201 fluoring column on the 13th,201 fluoring column.

25. The installation of a steel product to complete the crypt operation on the right side of the above music (hereinafter referred to as the “instant procedure”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1, images of Eul evidence 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

A. In the process of the instant procedure, the Defendant: (a) laid up three paths of Plaintiff’s pathy, but laid down only two pathys; (b) did not participate in the instant process at once; (c) did not use one pathy, and carried out several times; and (d) did not have any special reason for planting pathy with rhythm; and (e) did rhymhym in coordinating the pathy between pathy and pathy by adjusting the rhymym method instead of the rhymymymym, the Defendant caused the Plaintiff by negligence in violation of the duty of care in the instant rhyming procedure, resulting in the Plaintiff’s malmyming part of mathy, and making it impossible to walthize food, etc.; and (e) did not cause the hymyming part of the rhym.

B. In addition, the Defendant violated the duty to explain by failing to explain to the Plaintiff on the side effects that may arise from the crym operation, the management method after the crym operation, the fact that the crym may be fastened in the external form, the side effects that may arise therefrom, and the side effects that may arise from the adjustment of the normal crymia, etc.

C. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 8.2 million won to the plaintiff ( = medical expenses for the period payment of KRW 3.2 million + consolation money of KRW 5 million) and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. Whether the procedure violated the duty of care

1) As seen earlier, the Defendant: (a) discovered three parts of the Plaintiff’s upper right-hand part (the 1, 2, 2, and 5) and laid down two parts of the Defendant’s upper right; and (b) carried out the instant operations on several occasions at the time of the instant procedure; (c) linked two parts of the instant procedure, fixing the said parts together; (d) the said parts were cut off rhythm; (c) the Plaintiff appeared to have shown symptoms of being shymd with the Plaintiff’s upper right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s upper right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s upper right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s upper right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s music; and (d) did not dispute between the parties to the examination on December 25, 201; or (e) did not agree with the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraiser’s appraisal on the leased part of the Plaintiff; (e) there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s adjustment of the agreed part by the Defendant using the normal part of the scrap.

2) However, in light of the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the appraisal by the appraiser Nos. 2 and the appraisal by the appraiser Nos. 2, the following facts can be acknowledged. (A) In general, it may vary depending on the size of the patient's bad will or the arrangement of the body. Therefore, it is reasonable to set up two columns because the parts of the Plaintiff's bad will be discovered on the right side, 1, 2, 2, 3, and 5 are not spaces for flapt.

B) Drying operations for the formation of a flapt decoration may be carried out over several times to prevent balone by string heat.

C) In general, it would be generally used by linking several of the eggs with each other rather than normal one in the event of setting them, and it would be by a general treatment method to link and fix them at the time of the instant procedure.

D) Even if it is isolated with rhythrhm, it is the present universal method to keep the matter in use if the problem during use does not particularly arise.

E) In the case of the Plaintiff, most of the remaining natural values have been faced with chronic dypitis, and the Plaintiff’s rupture collapse due to chronic dypitis that had already been underway.

F) In addition, the Plaintiff had already lost 2 Daegu, 2 Daegu, 1, 2, and 1 on the left-hand side of the music prior to the instant treatment, and the 1st Daegu, the right-hand side of the music was also lost while the instant treatment was in progress. The Plaintiff, like the Plaintiff, was unable to obtain or make a normal reduction of the center line with the normal center, and the unity naturally takes place as a part of the cryp, and the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp where the cryp of the cryp of the cryp where the cryp of the cryp of the cryp is one ppuri, and the cryp of

3) In full view of the facts acknowledged above, it is difficult to see that the Defendant was negligent in violating the duty of care at the time of the instant procedure, or that there was a testamentary gift as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

B. Whether the duty of explanation is violated

In a case where a doctor is able to avoid a serious result by selecting whether a patient is entitled to receive a medical act by exercising his/her self-determination right if he/she had performed an operation without properly explaining the patient, etc., and the result of an unforeseen result was caused by the physician's failure to perform the duty to pay consolation money, etc., it is subject to cases where a doctor is required to make a decision by his/her own decision, such as where he/she performed a medical act which is highly probable to cause adverse result, such as surgery, etc., or where a doctor performs a medical act which is likely to cause adverse result, or where a doctor does not perform a medical act which is anticipated to cause a death, etc. Accordingly, it is difficult for the doctor to avoid a serious result by explaining the patient's symptoms, treatment or diagnosis method, and the risk likely to cause the occurrence of the patient's self-determination right to self-determination right to self-determination prior to such act. However, it does not constitute a violation of the duty to explain as consolation money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5717.

In this case, as seen earlier, the symptoms of the Plaintiff’s appeal are deemed to have been caused by chronic crypitis and loss of crypitis that the Plaintiff suffered from the existing crypitis, and there is no evidence that can be recognized as medical acts such as the Defendant’s cryposis, i.e., the instant procedure, etc., and thus, the violation of the duty of explanation cannot be an issue. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant failed to fulfill his duty of explanation and

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Il-soo

Judges Kim Jae-sung