1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked, and above.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case shall be based on the first instance judgment.

B. Paragraph (2) is deleted, and Paragraph (3) is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except as follows, and thus, it is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. [The part which was used by the court below] “The legal principles related to the occurrence of liability for damages caused by a breach of duty of care in the medical treatment of 3. Medical treatment, on the ground that the intent of the legal principles related to the determination of liability for damages caused by a breach of duty of care in the course of performing medical treatment, has committed a tort in violation of the duty of care in the course of medical treatment

However, medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is extremely difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether he/she violated the duty of care in the process of medical practice, or whether there exists a causal link between the violation of such duty of care and the occurrence of damage. Therefore, in cases where symptoms causing serious consequences to a patient occur during the surgery or after the surgery, if indirect facts that cannot be deemed as having any other reason than medical malpractice exist, such symptoms may be presumed to be based on medical negligence.

(1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged prior to the determination and the overall purport of the arguments on the evidence revealed earlier, the lower court presumed that the damage to the right side of the Plaintiff incurred by the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital was caused by the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital’s negligence in the course of the instant surgery, where the medical personnel excessively towed the right side pet gun during the instant surgery.

Therefore, the defendant as the employer of the medical staff of the defendant hospital is the plaintiff.