Defendant B shall be KRW 10,000,000 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the plaintiff's claim are as follows: (a) the part corresponding to the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 2, No. 12, No. 21, No. 11) concerning the termination of the illegal act in No. 5, No. 3 shall be deemed to mean "the termination of the second operation"; and (b) this court shall be deemed to read "the court of first instance" as "the court of first instance", and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion against Defendant 2

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant 2 violated the duty to explain prior to the second surgery because he did not explain the situation of the Plaintiff’s seat before the second surgery, whether the surgery is possible, the method of surgery, and the side effect of the surgery, and that Defendant 2 did not directly perform the first surgery because he did not perform the first surgery, even though he did not perform the first surgery, and that he did not directly perform the first surgery, and that Defendant 2 did not directly perform the first surgery since he did not directly perform the first surgery without any problem of general anesthesia at the time of the second surgery, Defendant 2 did not directly perform the first surgery.

B. In general, as to whether Defendant 2 violated the duty of explanation, the duty of care is required to take the best measures necessary to prevent possible risks arising from the procedure, in light of the nature of the work, to the doctor dealing with the life and health of the person.