1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the money that orders the payment of consolation money is equivalent to the following.

1. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim that: (a) the Defendant had undergone a pyromatic surgery from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant surgery”); (b) the Defendant did not maintain the appropriate interval and depth of the hair required in the instant surgery; and (c) the Plaintiff suffered damage from the shortage of the flag density, the destruction of the Marogate, and the destruction of the Marogate by negligence that did not properly manage the said operation; and (d) the Defendant is liable for tort due to medical malpractice or nonperformance of obligations (in particular, nonperformance of obligations).

In addition, the Defendant’s failure to explain the risks of the surgery, such as anticipated reflects prior to the instant underwater surgery, thereby seeking damages for the reason that the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination was infringed as a patient.

2. The reasons why the court should explain the contents and progress of the instant surgery are as stated in the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, 2.2. As such, the contents and progress of the instant surgery against the plaintiff are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

3. Whether to recognize liability for damages;

A. In a claim for damages caused by negligence in the course of a surgery or by negligence in the course of a surgery, the causal relationship between medical malpractice and the outcome is presumed, in cases where the Plaintiff, the injured party, proves, in the course of a series of medical practice, the act of medical negligence based on the common sense, and the result cannot be replaced by any other cause except a series of medical practices. However, in order to make such presumption possible, the Plaintiff, the injured party, should prove, first of all, through evidence or indirect facts with probability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da62505, Jun. 24, 2010).