1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following as to the allegations added in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital is liable for damages due to breach of the duty to explain, on the ground that the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to explain the combination of the drugs of this case against the Deceased (e.g., antibiotics, slurine, slurdoggggggggggggggggggggggggs

Where a physician violates his/her duty of explanation and makes an operation to a patient as a serious result, and only claims consolation money for the loss of opportunity to choose on the part of the patient and the impossibility of exercising his/her right of self-determination, it is sufficient to prove that the patient lost his/her opportunity to choose due to lack of explanation or lack of explanation, and even the relationship that would not have incurred any significant result if he/she received explanation. However, in cases of claiming compensation for all damages as a result, there is a proximate causal relationship between the serious result and the doctor's breach of his/her duty of explanation and the mistake in the process of acquiring consent. In light of the fact that the doctor's violation of his/her duty of explanation at that time protects the patient's right of self-determination or opportunity to choose for treatment, it should be sufficient to prove that the patient

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Da29666, Apr. 26, 2013). On May 11, 2018, the president of the Korea Medical Doctor Association of the Party (hereinafter “Korea Medical Doctor Association”) comprehensively takes account of the overall purport of the arguments in the medical record appraisal as of May 11, 2018, namely, the following circumstances: (a) a prior explanation is appropriate in the case of a drug that has a high blood tendency; but (b) the deceased’s condition of the hospital’s condition is urgent.