1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant 38,798,562 won to Plaintiff A, and KRW 1,500,000 to Plaintiff B.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal as follows. Thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. 【2-B' in the judgment of the court of first instance, 【2-B'. Generally, in the event that a doctor performs a medical act, such as an operation, which is highly probable to cause adverse results, or a medical act for which death, etc. is predicted, a doctor has a duty to explain to a patient or his/her legal representative about the symptoms of a disease, treatment methods and necessity of treatment, anticipated risks, etc. in light of the medical level at the time of the medical treatment and to allow the patient to choose whether to receive such medical act after sufficiently comparing the necessity or risks of the patient’s treatment (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da10479, Sept. 3, 199). In the event that the procedure of this case is an vegetable procedure that puts drugs into a part adjacent to the care for the patient, and where a medical act is expected to cause adverse results, such as death, etc., the patient or his/her legal representative is not expected to have been selected as the defendant at the time of the treatment of this case.

With respect to the scope of damages suffered by Plaintiff A due to its violation of this duty of explanation, it shall be deemed that Plaintiff A's right to self-determination was infringed upon due to the violation of the duty of explanation by the Defendant.