1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In August 2013, the Plaintiff continued to provide pains to the patha who received the pathy treatment, and applied to C patha, and 2 patha was generated upon the Defendant’s recommendation to perform the pathy treatment.

However, after the outbreak, the defendant refused to perform a procedure because of the plaintiff's colonism that is impossible or difficult to transplant, and unlike others, the defendant did not examine whether the coarmism occurred before the outbreak or explain to the plaintiff whether the coarmism exists, the problems of the coarization, the necessity of the eradication, the side effects of the non-explosion, etc.

Thus, in violation of the defendant's duty of care or duty of explanation, the plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to choose whether the child was born or not, and the defendant is obliged to compensate the plaintiff for medical expenses and consolation money, as the plaintiff suffered losses from unnecessary seizures.

B. At the time of December, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) moved to the CP to treat scamba in order to treat the scamba that was scamba; and (b) recommended the Defendant to launch up to the normal scamba in order to secure a space for scamba.

However, the Defendant, unlike the first explanation, recommended the replacement method for the method of the procedure for the treatment of Boopa, and did not explain the circumstances that it may be difficult for the Plaintiff before the outbreak of the procedure, the normal state of the infant, the necessity of the outbreak, the side effect of the non-explosion, etc.

Therefore, in violation of the defendant's duty of care or duty of explanation, the plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to choose whether the child was born or not, and the result was derived from giving rise to normal values. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for medical treatment and consolation money.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. One doctor of the legal doctrine on the determination of negligence in treatment, such as diagnosis and treatment.