1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

On May 15, 2010, at a hospital operated by the Defendant Incorporated Foundation B (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), the Plaintiff was administered by the Defendant C, which is a sexual surgery (hereinafter “instant surgery”) from the Defendant C (a sexual surgery; hereinafter “instant surgery”). (On the same day, the instant surgery was conducted by the Nonparty C, who was a sexual surgery and doctor at the hospital operated by the Defendant Incorporated Foundation B (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), and there is no dispute between the parties.

First of all, the plaintiff asserted that he did not explain the aftermath alcohol, side effects, and merger evidence before performing the instant surgery. However, considering the overall purport of the argument in the evidence No. 2-6, the medical personnel of the defendant hospital can be acknowledged as having explained the plaintiff about the aftermathical surgery, such as depreciation, etc., and there is no other circumstance to deem that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital violated the duty to explain, and therefore, the above argument is without merit.

Next, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff caused the extreme two problems, which are the side effects of the Ethical surgery, by negligence of defendant C's tactical weather.

Medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is extremely difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether he/she has violated his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists causation between the violation of his/her duty of care and the occurrence of damages. Therefore, in the event of symptoms causing death to a patient during the surgery, it is possible to presume that such symptoms are based on medical negligence by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to deem that there are other causes than medical negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da66328, Jul. 7, 200). However, even in this case, there is no probability to presume the occurrence of a result due to a doctor's negligence.