All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

Basic Facts

On January 21, 2019, the deceased A (hereinafter referred to as the “the Deceased”) received gymological autopsy and gymological autopsy from the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the instant surgery”) in order to correct both visual eye and gymological symptoms (hereinafter referred to as hereinafter referred to as “the instant surgery”).

The Deceased died on August 23, 2020, while the time was in progress, and the Plaintiffs, their children, jointly succeeded to the Deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including various numbers if there are numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the gist of the plaintiffs' assertion of the whole purport of arguments as to the whole of the arguments, the deceased was performed the instant surgery with an aim to improve both snow burgical state and burgical state. As a result of the instant surgery, there was a severe burgy, and there was a symptoms of internal autopsy.

The Deceased failed to hear from the Defendant the explanation that the above side effects may occur due to the instant surgery.

Therefore, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs, who are inheritances of the deceased, for damages to the property suffered by the deceased due to violation of the duty of medical care and duty of explanation, of KRW 18,346,342 and KRW 10 million.

Provided, however, in the event that a genetic disability occurs after medical practice on the basis of the relevant legal principles as to whether the medical care was breached, and subsequent disability may arise due to a merger of the medical practice process or may arise secondaryly due to such merger, if the symptoms are deemed to have exceeded the scope of generally recognized merger evidence in full view of the content of the medical practice, the process of the treatment, the degree and degree of the occurrence of the merger certificate, the level of the medical care at the time, and the degree of the medical personnel in charge, etc.

In so far, there was negligence in the medical practice process solely on the basis that there was a subsequent disability

It cannot be presumed (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da203763, Feb. 14, 2019, etc.).