1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation as to this case are as follows. The remaining evidence, other than the evidence presented in the "additional Part" of the evidence that the plaintiff submitted in the court of first instance, is added to insufficient evidence. Thus, the court of first instance cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] The plaintiff asserts that the symptoms shown by the operation of this case exceeded the scope of general aftermath disability and is due to negligence of the defendant.

In the event of a subsequent disability caused by medical practice, unless the symptoms were exceeded generally recognized in light of the content of the medical practice, the process of the relevant medical practice, the occurrence and degree of the merger, the medical level at the time, and the degree of the medical staff’s advanced training, etc., in a case where the subsequent disability could be caused by the combination of the relevant medical practice processes, or could be caused by the combination thereof, even in a case where the best measures were taken at the medical level at the time of the occurrence of the subsequent disability, the fact that the subsequent disability was caused by negligence in the medical practice cannot be presumed to have been found to have been committed in the course of the medical practice.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da76290 Decided March 27, 2008). The fact that the Plaintiff was unable to receive urology after the instant surgery, and there was any disorder in breathesis and kidney, which caused the complete loss of her sexual function, is as seen earlier. However, in light of the following circumstances and the overall purport of arguments as a result of the medical record appraisal commission with respect to the head of the relevant Busan National University Hospital, each of the following circumstances, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the robot operation is more favorable for the Plaintiff to minimize urology and sexual disorder, but there is a possibility of occurrence of mergers such as other surgery methods.