Of the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff, the part against the defendant school juristic person as well as the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that there was no proximate causal relation with the instant traffic accident that occurred on October 3, 2004, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s urology disorder and urine urology disorder (vertebrate urine urology disorder) did not exceed the scope of compensation for damages. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

B. (i) In a case where a doctor’s medical practice becomes a tort due to a violation of the duty of care in the process of operation, there should be causation between the negligence in the medical practice and the loss. The burden of proof is borne by the patient as well as the patient. However, medical practice is a field requiring highly professional knowledge, and it is extremely difficult to find out whether there was a violation of the duty of care in the medical process or whether there was a causal relationship between the breach of the duty of care and the loss caused. Thus, if there is any indirect fact that is difficult to deem that there is any other cause than the medical negligence in the course of operation, if there is any other reason other than the medical negligence, with respect to the occurrence of symptoms caused to the patient after the surgery, it can be presumed that the symptoms were based on medical negligence.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Da66328, Jul. 7, 2000; 2010Da57787, May 9, 2012). The lower court cited the first instance judgment, and the Plaintiff is the Defendant on April 18, 2006.