1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 15,00,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from January 26, 2015 to August 23, 2018.

1. The basic facts;

2. The Plaintiff’s ground for the claim;

3. The reasons for this part of the judgment by the court are as follows, 5 pages 5, 18 to 21, 6-1 to 7, 7, 7-10 to 21, 8-1, 5 to 17, 8-17, 8-18 to 8, and 8-10 are as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment by the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment by the court of first instance, except where 8-18 to 10-8 are used. Thus, this part of the judgment is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. In cases where a physician violates the duty to explain and thereby causing unexpected damages to a patient by conducting an operation, etc., the scope of compensation for damages must have a proximate causal relationship between the significant result and the doctor’s breach of the duty to explain and the mistake in the process of obtaining consent. In such cases, a doctor’s breach of duty to explain and to protect the patient’s right to self-determination or the opportunity to choose for treatment. However, in cases where a doctor loses the opportunity to choose and claims consolation money only for the loss of the patient’s right to self-determination, it should be sufficient to prove only the fact that the patient lost the opportunity to choose due to lack of explanation or lack of the doctor’s duty to explain and that the patient was unable to exercise his/her right to self-determination, and there is no need to prove the relationship between the death, etc. if he/she received the explanation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da48443 Decided October 25, 2002). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in light of the contents and degree of violation of the duty to explain of this case as seen earlier, the circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff to undergo the instant surgery, and the contents and process of the relevant medical practice, the Defendant’s breach of the duty to explain is deemed to be identical to the medical doctor’s breach of the duty to explain in the course of physical invasion.