1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, i.e., the second and second instances “ May 24, 2014.” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da42068, Oct. 24, 2014). In addition, the court of first instance, except for further determination as to “claim for violation of the duty to explain” as stated below, citing

2. Judgment on the assertion of violation of duty to explain

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital infringed the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination by failing to explain other selective methods of treatment, other than studio, such as the description of the merger, such as brain color and the closure of telecom, which may arise due to the studio inserted, and the studio.

B. (1) A doctor’s duty to explain patients is not limited to the surgery, but to take part in all stages of medical treatment, such as examination, diagnosis, and treatment. However, if a doctor’s duty to explain and perform an operation without properly explaining the patient to the patient and resulting in unexpected results to the patient, a doctor would have to explain the symptoms of the disease, the details and necessity of the treatment or diagnosis method and the potential risks of the occurrence, etc. before performing the act, and then choose whether the patient would receive the medical act by exercising his/her right to self-determination if he/she had been able to avoid the occurrence of serious results. In this sense, the doctor’s duty to explain is not for all the medical process, but for all the medical process, and for the medical act that is likely to cause adverse results, such as death, etc. is predicted.