손해배상(의)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following portions added, and thus, citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420
2. The addition;
A. The Plaintiff infringed the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination by failing to explain to the Plaintiff that D, an employee of the Defendant, could be separated from the bruptical area due to the merger due to the crutinism, and thus, 30,000,000 won in the existing claim for consolation money amounting to 40,000 won was added to the claim for mental damages due to the above violation of the duty to explain.
B. In general, a doctor has a duty to explain the relevant patient or his/her legal representative on the premise that he/she is required to obtain consent to the symptoms, treatment method and necessity of the disease, the anticipated risk, etc. in light of the medical level at the time when the patient is sufficiently compared with the necessity or risk and to choose whether to receive the medical act. A doctor's duty to explain cannot be exempted solely on the ground that there is little possibility of danger, such as post-treatment or side effects, etc., following the relevant medical act, and where post-treatment or side effects are highly likely to cause danger or irrecoverable, and where post-treatment or side effects are highly likely to cause danger or irrecoverable as a typical consequence of the relevant medical act, it shall be subject to explanation notwithstanding the scarcity of the possibility of occurrence.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da3421 delivered on January 20, 1995, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da48443 delivered on October 25, 2002, etc.). Meanwhile, on the other hand, the same applies.