1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

1. In addition to the evidence submitted in the trial, such as the result of a fact-finding on L Association of the court of first instance, there is a medical negligence on the part of the defendant in the treatment process against the plaintiff A.

It is difficult to see that the defendant violated the duty to explain.

Therefore, the reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the last 10 pages to 11 pages 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the written application is completed as set forth in the following Paragraph 2; and (b) thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text

2. Parts to be dried;

C. At the time of the suspension of taking clothes against Plaintiff A, the Plaintiffs did not explain the cerebral danger due to the suspension of taking clothes, etc., and did not explain the reason why Defendant G did not conduct the MRI inspection or the risk of taking the MRI photographs even after there was a cerebral sign for the suspension of taking clothes. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiffs violated the duty of explanation as a doctor, and thus, are liable to compensate for the damages incurred therefrom.

A doctor's duty to explain patients shall not be limited to the time of surgery, and shall take place in all stages of medical treatment, such as examination, diagnosis and treatment, respectively.

Even if a doctor imposes a duty to pay consolation money, etc. on a doctor for a violation of the duty to explain the patient's failure to explain it, and if a serious result occurs to the patient by performing an operation without properly explaining the patient, the doctor is deprived of the opportunity for the doctor to avoid the significant result by selecting whether the patient would receive the medical act by exercising his/her right to self-determination if he/she had been aware of the symptoms, treatment or diagnosis method of the disease before the act by explaining the patient's potential risks, etc.