1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article. Thus, this part is cited by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. The relevant legal principles are areas requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is extremely difficult for a general person, other than an expert, to clarify whether he/she has violated his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists causation between the violation of his/her duty of care and the occurrence of losses. Therefore, if symptoms causing the result of an operation occur to a patient during or after the surgery, it may be presumed that the symptoms occur due to medical negligence by proving indirect facts that are difficult to deem that there are other causes than the medical negligence. However, even in such case, it is difficult to presume that the symptoms occur due to medical negligence by proving indirect facts that there is no other causes than the medical negligence. However, even in such a case, it is not permissible for a doctor to bear the burden of proof of negligence by estimating the causal relationship between the doctor's negligence and the medical negligence as a result of an excessive result with circumstances that do not guarantee the probability of presumption of the occurrence

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff caused the Plaintiff’s real name on the part of the lower court due to the medical personnel’s negligence in the process of performing the artificial insemination removal surgery that was abandoned by the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital, and that the Plaintiff caused the Plaintiff’s routture due to the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s routture or the occurrence of the routture of the routture or the merger of the moutine.

In relation to this, the defendant had been separated from the main location, but it was not completely free body, although the artificial insemination in the coordinates was left from the main location before the operation.