1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following determination as to the defendant’s argument added in the court of first instance as to this case, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument added in the trial of the court

A. 1) The Defendant asserted medical negligence as to medical malpractice. As the Defendant fulfilled all the duty of care in using the instant electrical equipment in the course of the surgery against the Plaintiff, there is no medical negligence, and the Plaintiff did not assert and prove any specific duty of care. Thus, it is unreasonable to hold the Defendant accountable for the resultological liability. 2) In a case where a doctor’s medical act is claimed as tort due to a violation of the duty of care in the process, there is a causal relationship between the negligence in the medical act and the damage. The burden of proof is borne by the patient. Medical act is a field requiring highly specialized knowledge, but medical act is a general person, not an expert, and it is extremely difficult to clarify whether there was a causal relationship between the doctor’s breach of the duty of care in the course of the surgery, or whether there was a causal relationship between the breach of the duty of care and the damage. Thus, if there is any symptoms other than the medical negligence, it can be presumed that there is any other indirect facts based on the symptoms other than the medical negligence.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da57787, May 9, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case was examined, and the evidence and the entire purport of pleadings as seen earlier are comprehensively considered.