1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, and the succeeding Intervenor A’s National Pension Service.

1. The reasons why this court should explain are the same as the part of "1. Basic Facts" of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. Defendant D and F’s claim 1) Negligence in the instant surgery and causation (1) the main point of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that Defendant F erred in the operation of the alcohol apparatus during the instant surgery and caused the death of the deceased, thereby causing the death of the deceased.

(2) In a case where a medical doctor’s medical practice becomes a tort due to a violation of the duty of care in the course of the operation, there should be causation between negligence in the medical practice as well as the occurrence of damage and the occurrence of damage. The burden of proof on this matter should be borne by the patient. However, medical practice is an area requiring high level of expertise. The medical process requires high level of expertise. The patient himself/herself can only be aware of his/her part, and the medical procedure to achieve the result of treatment depends on his/her own discretion. Since the medical procedure to achieve the result of treatment depends on the doctor’s discretion, it is extremely difficult for an ordinary person, other than an expert, to clarify whether there was a violation of the duty of care in the medical procedure, or whether there was causation between the violation of the duty of care and the damage. Thus, it is also possible to presume that the symptoms have been caused by other indirect facts, except the violation of the duty of care in the medical care.

Supreme Court Decision 9Da66328 delivered on July 7, 200, Supreme Court Decision 99Da6328 delivered on July 7, 2000.