The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the first ground of appeal violated the duty of care in the process of conducting inspections prior to the instant surgery, anesthesia and surgery.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the standard of determining the existence of a doctor’s negligence or by erroneously recognizing facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. A doctor is obligated to explain the patient's symptoms, treatment method and necessity, anticipated risks, anticipated risks of occurrence, patient's condition before the procedure, possibility of occurrence of serious results, prevention possibility, etc. in light of the current medical level and to select whether the patient will receive such medical practice by sufficiently comparing the necessity or risk and by sufficiently comparing it with the possibility of prevention, etc., unless there are special circumstances such as the patient, etc.

The doctor's duty to explain can not be exempted solely on the ground that there is little possibility of danger such as aftermath, side effects, etc. following medical practice, and in the event that aftermath or side effects are typically dangerous or irrecoverable, the doctor's duty to explain is subject to explanation regardless of the possibility of occurrence.