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 judgment of the court of first instance that accepted the judgment is to delete the part of the second instance judgment’s “competence” under the first instance judgment, and to accept it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated, except for the Plaintiff’s additional or supplementary decision as to the part claimed in this court

2. Additional or supplementary judgment

A. The relevant legal principles are areas requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is very difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether he/she has violated the duty of care in the medical process of a doctor, or whether there exists causation between the violation of such duty of care and the occurrence of damage. Therefore, it is also possible to presume that the symptoms occur to a patient during the surgery by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to deem any other reason than the medical malpractice in the event of symptoms causing serious damage to the patient during the surgery. However, even in such a case, it is difficult to presume that the symptoms occur due to medical negligence by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to deem that there is any other reason than the medical negligence. However, even in such a case, it is not permissible for a doctor to bear the burden of proof without negligence by presumptioning the causal relationship between the doctor's negligence and the non-performance of the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da27442 Decided February 26, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da27442, Feb. 26, 2015). In a case where a claim for damages is made due to a breach of duty of care, the injured party may be held liable for damages by estimating the causal link between medical malpractice and the result, in a series of medical practices where the injured party proves that there was a medical negligence based on ordinary common sense in the process of the

Supreme Court Decision 93Da52402 delivered on February 10, 1995