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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of the admitted evidence, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (i) although the Plaintiff was 3-4 level her ability not to perform the primary surgery before the primary surgery and only her urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine. (ii) during the primary surgery, the medical team of the Defendant hospital was damaged by the Plaintiff’s urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine, and the Plaintiff’s urine urine urine urine was damaged by the Plaintiff’s urine urine urine.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Inasmuch as the medical treatment obligation owed by a physician to a patient is not an obligation to achieve the result of the patient’s treatment, but an obligation to provide necessary and appropriate medical treatment in light of the current medical level with the care of a good manager for treatment, i.e., the obligation to provide medical treatment, so that the result of the medical treatment is not satisfactory, it cannot be presumed that the obligation to provide medical treatment is not fulfilled

In addition, in the event that the residual disability occurs as a result of medical practice, even if the disability is the best measure at the medical level at the time, the medical practice in question.