1. With respect to the procedure of the disturbance stated in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant is KRW 8,336,840.

1. The plaintiff's assertion has fulfilled his duty of care as a doctor, such as confirming the defendant's state of crymosis in the course of performing the crym operation and follow-up treatment as shown in the attached Form, and prescribing the medication for chronic crymitis. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is not liable for compensation for side effects asserted by the defendant as to the crym operation

2. Determination

A. 1) A doctor of the relevant legal doctrine has the duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent hazards depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances. Such a doctor’s duty of care shall be determined based on the level of medical practice performed in the field of clinical medicine, such as medical institutions at the time of performing medical practice. Whether the level of medical care should be understood as normatively required or not, and the specific situation of the relevant doctor or medical institution should not be considered. Furthermore, the diagnosis is an important medical practice selected by the Medical Treatment Act, i.e., identifying whether the disease was discovered or not based on the outcome, such as literature, diagnosis, promotion, hearing, and various clinical tests, and identifying its kind, character, nature, and degree of progress. As such, it is impossible to determine whether there is negligence in the diagnosis, even if it is impossible to conduct the complete clinical diagnosis, the relevant doctor should be determined based on the level of diagnosis conducted in the field of clinical medicine within the scope of at least the level of diagnosis required as a specialist, with careful examination and diagnosis of patients at the university and college (see Supreme Court Decision 202023Da324.).