1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: (a) as to the part of the plaintiff's assertion about medical negligence, the court added the following judgments to the 7th 16th 16th 16th 16th 7th 7th 7th 17th 8th 8th 8th 7th 7th 17th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 1st 1th 2th 1st 200 of the first 1st 20

2. The Plaintiff asserts that there was a medical negligence that Defendant C selected an improper operation method in the execution of the instant surgery, or failed to properly maintain the fixed operation after the surgery, due to an error in the surgery technique.

However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that Defendant C chosen the method of inserting the artificial bones (K) at the time of the instant operation to have chosen the method of treatment beyond the reasonable discretion range rather than the general level of medical science, patient status, and treatment method chosen according to Defendant C’s professional knowledge or experience. There is no evidence to support that Defendant C’s error in the surgery techniques led to failure in the first fixed period, or that Defendant C failed to properly maintain the fixed period after the instant operation.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Parts to be dried;

B. Whether the patient or his/her legal representative violates the duty to explain (1) or not, in general, a doctor is expected to have the symptoms of the disease, the method and necessity of treatment, and the occurrence of the disease in case where the patient or his/her legal representative is engaged in a medical act which is likely to cause bad results, such as surgery, etc., and where the medical act is expected to cause bad results, or where the patient or his/her legal representative is engaged in a medical act which is anticipated to cause bad results, such as death, etc.