2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The reasons why the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is stated by the court of first instance is "2. A."

Since the part of the plaintiffs' assertion is identical to the part of the "the plaintiffs' assertion", it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The reasoning for this part of the court's reasoning is as follows: (b) whether there was any negligence of harm to blood transfusion during the first operation of the first instance court's judgment; and (b) "the violation of the duty of explanation" is identical to the part of "the judgment on whether there was any violation of the duty of explanation" in the first instance judgment, and therefore, (b) this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[1] 1) Medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is extremely difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether a doctor has breached his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice or whether there is a causal relationship between a violation of his/her duty of care and a loss. Therefore, in the event any symptoms causing a serious result to a patient during the surgery occur, it may be presumed that such symptoms are based on medical negligence by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to deem that there is any other reason than medical negligence. However, even in this case, the doctor bears the burden of proving the causal relationship between the doctor's negligence and the result in a serious serious consequence with circumstances where it is not probable to presume the occurrence of a result due to a doctor's negligence.