1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 30, 2013, the Defendant was a medical corporation operating the Busan Seocheon-dong Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was urgently transferred to the Defendant Hospital, and was given an operation to remove a conical signboard due to the external depression of the conical signboards No. 4-5, and was discharged on October 17, 2013 after being hospitalized at the Defendant Hospital for approximately two weeks.

B. The Plaintiff came to know that, at around 15:00 on the same day after he had been administered to remove the said conical signboard, he was in a soft room (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff’s guardian discovered that the said conical scrap metal was suffering from the Plaintiff’s food, through a public prosecutor, and removed the said dental scrap metal at around 17:21, around 17:0.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 5, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) The Defendant hospital violated its duty to explain by failing to inform the Plaintiff of the risks of the foregoing risks, although there is a risk of the loss of dental scraps in the course of a general anesthesia for the removal of a signboard, the Defendant hospital violated its duty to explain. (2) Although the Defendant hospital should pay due attention to the Plaintiff’s dental scraps in the course of performing a general anesthesia, the Defendant hospital caused the instant accident by negligence, which neglected the above duty of care.

3. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused thereby.

B. In full view of whether the Defendant hospital violated the duty of explanation, the Defendant hospital’s written evidence No. 2 and the overall purport of the oral argument as to whether the Defendant hospital violated the duty of explanation, the Defendant hospital prepared an operation and written consent to anesthesia surgery and anesthesia, including the fact that there may be multiplescopic damage, etc. caused by general anesthesia, and the Plaintiff’s guardian.