1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiffs' claims expanded in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts and the arguments by the parties are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where “this court” is deemed to be “the court of first instance”. As such, it shall be cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. 1) In general, in cases where a doctor violates the duty to explain when he/she performs an operation for a patient, and performs medical acts that are likely to cause adverse results thereafter, barring any other special circumstance, he/she is obligated to explain the symptoms of a disease, treatment method and necessity, foreseeable risks, etc. to the patient or his/her legal representative in light of the current medical level, and make the patient select whether he/she will receive such medical acts by sufficiently comparing the necessity and risks of the disease (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da49608, Jul. 22, 1997). The doctor’s duty to explain the patient’s consent to the surgery, etc. cannot be exempted solely on the ground that there is little possibility of causing harm, such as post-treatment or side effects, etc., following the medical practice, or on the premise that consent to the surgery is obtained, and where the patient or his/her legal representative is unable to get the patient’s consent to undergo the pertinent treatment act, it can be deemed that the Defendant’s explanation of the Plaintiff’s symptoms or side effects, etc.