The part against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court as to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, it is justifiable to conclude that the lower court did not have any breach of the duty of care by Defendant B’s act of performing an PAP Smear inspection on the Plaintiff by means of a cell force (hereinafter “instant inspection”), on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. A. A doctor’s duty to explain patients is not limited to the surgery, but to take part in all stages of medical treatment, such as examination, diagnosis, treatment, etc. However, if a doctor performed an operation without properly explaining the patient and resulting in unexpected results to the patient, a doctor may avoid significant results by selecting whether the patient would receive medical treatment by exercising his/her right to self-determination if he/she had explained the symptoms, treatment or diagnosis method and necessity of the disease before performing the operation, etc., and the risk expected to occur. In this sense, the doctor’s duty to explain is not subject to all medical process, but subject to the whole process of surgery, etc., and the doctor’s duty to explain is expected to perform medical act that is likely to cause adverse results, such as death, etc., by his/her own decision.