손해배상(의)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from February 28, 2017 to August 29, 2019.
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant is operating Curology in Daejeon Jung-gu.
B. On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff received Tamamambling surgery (hereinafter “instant surgery”) from the Defendant on the part of the Defendant on the part of the part of the Plaintiff’s man franc, etc. on the part of the man franc, which led to a minor change in the part of the mama.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant did not explain to the Plaintiff when conducting the instant procedure. Since the Plaintiff’s marin was caused by the Defendant’s negligence during the instant procedure, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages.
B. As to the assertion of breach of duty to explain, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the defendant alone explained to the plaintiff the side effects, etc. in the course of performing the instant treatment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is with merit.
As to this, the Defendant asserts that the exceptional side effects, such as this brine, are not included in the subject of the obligation to explain, and even if not, there was no side effects that had already been used for the same injection several times at the time of the instant procedure, so even if not, it does not infringe the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination. However, insofar as symptoms, such as this brine, etc., caused to the Plaintiff, are exceptional side effects that may arise from the instant procedure, it constitutes subject to the obligation to explain. However, even if the Defendant, prior to the instant procedure, provided sufficient explanation to the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff had been given a part of the Plaintiff on several occasions, there is room for not undergoing the instant procedure on the part of this brine, so the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination.