2. The grounds for this part of the plaintiffs' assertion are the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s judgment is as follows. This part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of paragraphs 3(b) and (c) of the reasoning for the judgment as follows. As such, this part

[Supplementary Use]

B. A doctor’s breach of duty of explanation and one doctor’s duty of explanation on the causal relationship between the deceased’s death arise not only in the surgery, but also in all stages of diagnosis, diagnosis, treatment, etc., the reason why the doctor is obliged to pay consolation money, etc. to the doctor for the breach of duty of explanation is to avoid mental suffering resulting from the loss of opportunity by the doctor’s failure to explain the above explanation, in the event the doctor’s failure to perform surgery results in unexpectedly serious consequences to the patient by performing the surgery, etc. without properly explaining the patient, and the doctor explained the patient’s symptoms, treatment or diagnosis method, the contents and necessity of the disease, and risks that may arise from the surgery.

In this sense, a doctor's explanation is not for the whole medical process, but for the process of an intrusion such as surgery and other medical practice that is likely to cause bad results, or for the medical practice that is predicted to cause serious results such as death.