1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Facts of recognition

Pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance shall be quoted.

The plaintiff asserts that the negligence in the process of the occurrence of liability for damages and the limitation of liability has caused the plaintiff's non-obsitive reflective behavior due to the medical malpractice that had been repeated for a short period of time by excessive restraint of the parts to be added to each of the instant operations and in particular during the secondary operations.

The Defendant asserts that there was medical malpractice on the sole basis that there was a post-treatment to the Plaintiff, even though there was no excessive cutting of the skin and the surrounding body in the process of the instant secondary surgery, it cannot be readily concluded that there was medical malpractice on the part of the Defendant. Rather, the Plaintiff neglected follow-up management due to the lack of sufficient source to the Defendant hospital after the instant surgery, and had undergone multiple sexual surgery under the circumstances where there was a disorder in the function of controlling the recovery of the state of the inner part, including the surrounding area of the instant surgery, and had undergone multiple sexual surgery under the circumstances.

In order to be held liable for tort due to breach of duty of care or non-performance with respect to medical practice, the existence of causation between breach of duty of care in medical practice, occurrence of damages and breach of duty of care and occurrence of damages should be presumed.

However, medical practice requires highly specialized knowledge, and the process of the medical practice is limited to the patient himself/herself, as well as the patient himself/herself can be aware of, and the medical method to achieve the result of the medical treatment depends on the doctor's discretion. Therefore, the issue of whether the direct cause of the damage was due to the medical negligence can not be clearly identified as an ordinary person who is not an expert, and the causal relationship between the doctor's breach of the duty of care and the occurrence of the damage.