1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) sought an operation consultation with the Defendant on the part of the inner part of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s “Bsung Foreign Medical Academy” located in Seocho-gu; and (b) received a consultation with the Defendant on the part of the inner part; and (c) received a prior instruction from the Defendant on March 22, 2016 (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

B. On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff signed the written consent for the surgery as shown in the attached Form before receiving the instant surgery.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s negligence caused more reflects after the instant surgery, and that the Defendant did not fulfill his/her duty to explain, and sought consolation money of KRW 5,00,000 and damages for delay against the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. It is insufficient to recognize that there is no medical negligence in the execution of the instant surgery only with the statement of evidence No. 1 on medical negligence, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. In general, a doctor of the relevant legal doctrine is obligated to explain the symptoms, treatment method and necessity of a disease, and anticipated risks in light of the medical level at the time when the patient concerned or his/her legal representative, in cases where he/she performs a medical act that is likely to cause bad results, such as an operation, etc., to a patient, and where the patient concerned or his/her legal representative conducts a medical act that is anticipated to cause bad results, or where it is predicted that serious results, such as death, etc., the patient concerned or his/her legal representative is obliged to explain matters deemed reasonable in light of the medical level at the time when he/she performed the medical act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867, May 31, 2007). In particular, cosmetic surgery is an external appearance.