1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the new argument at the trial by the Plaintiff, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment at the trial is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that he/she has violated the duty to explain by neglecting his/her consent, even though he/she should obtain the consent of the deceased, if the defendant is unable to secure the skills of the deceased before the operation, he/she can perform astronomical surgery, not breathical surgery, and thus may die.

In general, when a doctor performs a medical act, such as an operation, which is highly probable to cause a bad result, or when a doctor performs a medical act for which a serious result, such as death, etc. is predicted, he/she has a duty to explain the relevant patient or his/her legal representative about the symptoms, treatment method and necessity of the disease, the potential risk of the occurrence, etc. in light of the medical level at the time, and to allow the patient or his/her legal representative to choose whether to receive such medical act by sufficiently comparing the necessity or risk of the disease, but he/she shall not be obliged to perform the duty to explain the potential risks not expected due to the relevant medical act, or not, in light of the current medical level.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da10479 delivered on September 3, 199, etc.). According to the evidence submitted to this court, the deceased was injured by a traffic accident, such as an acute hiverosis, and was in an emergency situation requiring the removal of blood species and the pressure thereof through an hiversary surgery. The hivers are limited to a partial pressure.