The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, a doctor has a duty to explain to a patient, prior to providing medical treatment, matters deemed reasonable in light of the current medical level, such as symptoms of a disease, the content and necessity of treatment methods, anticipated risks, etc., and to make the patient choose whether to undergo such medical treatment by sufficiently comparing the necessity or risks of the patient. In particular, if such medical treatment is performed at the clinical trial stage, a doctor has a duty to explain in comparison with the general standard medical practice performed clinically at the time of the enforcement of the relevant medical treatment.

(2) The Defendant is obligated to explain not only the general explanation of the level required for the instant procedure, but also the fact that the instant procedure is a medical act whose safety and effectiveness (treatment effect) has not been established by clinical data, on October 14, 2010. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da3162, Oct. 14, 2010). The lower court determined that the Defendant failed to perform its duty to explain the instant procedure, on the ground that: (a) although the instant procedure was performed at the stage of the clinical trial at the time of the implementation; (b) there was a duty to explain not only the ordinary explanation of the degree required for the instant medical act; (c) the instant procedure was a medical act whose safety and effectiveness (treatment effect) has not yet been proved; and (d) there was no agreement based on clinical experience in medicine.

The above judgment of the court below is seen earlier.