All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant are assessed against each other.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant failed to perform its duty to explain required in the instant procedure on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty to explain or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence.

B. Examining the ground of appeal No. 3 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is justified in holding that there is a proximate causal relationship between the implementation of the instant procedure due to the Defendant’s violation of the duty to explain and the symptoms experienced by the Plaintiffs after the instant procedure, as well as the Plaintiffs’ claim for consolation money and the medical expenses claim.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of damages.

2. As to the Plaintiff A’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the ground of appeal No. 1 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the Defendant’s execution of the instant procedure itself is not unlawful, and it is difficult to deem the Defendant as having violated the duty of due care and the duty of due diligence for the transitional observation against the Plaintiff A.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, if the victim was negligent in the occurrence or expansion of damages or there is any ground to limit the tortfeasor's liability, this shall be taken into account in determining the scope of liability for damages. It is significant in light of the principle of equity to determine the fact-finding of comparative negligence or the grounds for limitation of liability.