The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of the evidence, the court below found that, although the Plaintiff was receiving treatment with constant blurgical pain, the Plaintiff had been under normal conditions before the surgery, and that the Plaintiff was under normal conditions, and that there was a new flurgical pain and surgical sewage with no previous right-hand side from the time when the heat level occurred after the surgery of this case. The Plaintiff’s above flurgical symptoms were attributable to the 5th Emphe of the surgery of this case. The Plaintiff’s above flurgical disorder caused by the cT and X-ray shooting test conducted by the Defendant hospital after the surgery of this case, it appears that the flurgical pressure and surgical therapy were under incomplete conditions at the time of the surgery of this case, and determined that the Plaintiff was under incomplete flurgical pressure and surgical damage caused by progressive pressure other than flurgical damage or direct damage to the mouth at the time of the surgery of this case.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Medical treatment obligations owed by a physician to a patient are not an obligation as a result of the achievement of the same result as the recovery of a disease, but an obligation to take necessary and appropriate medical treatment measures in light of the current medical level with the duty of due care of a good manager for the treatment of a patient, i.e., the obligation for medical treatment with the result of medical treatment.