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

A. On January 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed in C Hospital with a brucioma, and became a member of the Defendant Hospital on January 13, 2010.

B. On February 2, 2010, as a result, D, a medical specialist in the Defendant hospital, conducted MRI test against the Plaintiff, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff was aware of the pre-faculation, and on February 2, 2010, the Plaintiff received the pre-faculatory pre-faculation (hereinafter “instant surgery”) using robots from the Defendant hospital.

C. On June 18, 2010, the Plaintiff complained of the symptoms after the instant surgery, and was informed at the Defendant Hospital of the drug treatment and the pelvisary movement.

On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff received artificial in-depth inserting surgery from Seoul National University Hospital to treat the symptoms of the said fact.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① Even though the Plaintiff did not have the ability to bring about the loss incurred before the instant surgery, the Defendant hospital, the user of D, is liable to compensate for damages, since the instant surgery was caused by damage to the Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Ma.

② On October 2009, the Defendant hospital introduced robot surgery equipment, and subsequently, the Defendant hospital carried out the second pre-shipment surgery against the Plaintiff.

D only explained only the advantages of the robot operation to the Plaintiff, but not specifically explain the possible aftermath, and the Plaintiff trusted D’s explanation that side effects are low and got a robot operation, and the Defendant hospital is liable for the Plaintiff’s failure to explain.

3. Determination

A. The instant case.