The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of negligence in the surgery and in the process observation, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s negligence in the surgery and in the process observation in relation to the first and second surgery of this case, and that it was difficult to recognize that the Defendant could have prevented bad results if the Defendant had properly observed the process in relation to the third surgery of this case.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

2. As to the assertion of violation of the duty to explain, the doctor (1) is obligated to explain to the patient or his/her legal representative on the premise that the patient or his/her legal representative is obliged to receive the relevant medical practice after fully considering the necessity and risk, etc. of the medical practice, on the premise that the patient or his/her legal representative is required to obtain the patient's medical obligation under the medical contract, or consent to the treatment, such as an emergency patient, unless there are any special circumstances, such as in the case of an emergency, and on the premise that the patient or his/her legal representative is expected to receive the relevant medical practice.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867 Decided May 31, 2007). In a case where a physician fails to explain the above matters to a patient, the so-called “Immunity by family consent” that, in the event that it is acknowledged that the patient consented to medical practice even if the patient gave an explanation, the patient is not liable for the failure to explain, is exceptionally allowed only when the patient’s consent was clearly anticipated (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da22871, Oct. 29, 2015). (2) The lower court.