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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Even if a medical doctor’s breach of duty of care is recognized for tort liability, if the damage was caused or expanded by competition between the error of medical practice and the factors on the part of the victim, even though the factors on the part of the victim were irrelevant to the victim’s fault, such as the risk of the disease, if the degree of the disease’s attitude, etc. is contrary to the principle of fairness to compensate the perpetrator for the whole damage in light of the degree of the victim’s fault, etc., the court may apply the legal principle of comparative negligence to determine the amount of compensation, and by analogy it can take into account the factors on the part of the victim who contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage.

However, finding of facts as to limitation of liability or setting the ratio thereof ought not be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da16968, Jul. 10, 2014). However, in cases where damage was incurred due to neglect of ordinary duty of care required for medical doctors, nurses, etc. in light of the judgment ability or medical technology level generally required in relation to the medical practice without any circumstance to deem the risk accompanying the medical practice in question due to the characteristics of the disease, limitation of the method of treatment, etc., the liability for damages should not be limited solely for the mere reason such as the occurrence of damage in the course of treatment.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning, and found that the instant accident occurred on the day and the following day of the instant surgery, and that Plaintiff A’s oxygen was within the normal range and there was no other special opinion even after activeness.