1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

The grounds for this part of the court's judgment for the recognition of liability for damages are stated in this part.

1. Since the reasoning of paragraph (1) is the same as that of the foregoing, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In a case where a doctor's medical act becomes a tort due to a violation of the duty of care in the course of the medical act, there should be a causal relationship between negligence in the medical act and the occurrence of damage and the occurrence of damage. The burden of proof should be borne by the patient. However, medical act is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge. The process of the medical act is limited to only the patient himself/herself can be known in addition to the patient himself/herself. Since the medical method to achieve the result of the medical treatment depends on his/her own discretion, it is extremely difficult for an ordinary person, other than an expert, to clarify whether there was a violation of the duty of care in the medical procedure or whether there was a causal relationship between the violation of the duty of care in the course of the medical act. Thus, it is also possible to presume that the patient's symptoms were caused by symptoms while the operation was performed by the patient, by proving various indirect facts that are difficult to excluding the violation of the duty of care in the medical act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da66328 delivered on July 7, 2000, etc.). Prior to the instant procedure, no special disease or symptoms that may lead to the Plaintiff’s physical condition were found.

The 2000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1.0 00 0 00 200 20 200 20 200