1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined

A. As to the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of care, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, in light of the legal principle that, in the event of symptoms causing severe results to the patient after an operation, indirect facts that are difficult to deem that there are other causes than medical negligence are attributable to medical negligence may be presumed to have been presumed to have been presumed to have been attributable to medical negligence, if such symptoms were proved as to the occurrence of symptoms. 2) The above legal principle is premised on the case where “a symptoms causing severe results” occurred, and thus, the above legal principle cannot be applied to the case where there is no proof that the symptoms causing different causes are attributable to the Defendant’s operation until the occurrence of the outcome as in the instant case.

한편 제1심 감정인 D의 감정 결과에 따르면 양쪽 턱부위 함몰의 경우 원고가 그 전에 성형수술을 받은 적이 있고 이와 같은 증상이 발생하는데 이전의 성형수술이 상당한 영향을 끼친 것으로 보이는 점, 좌측 이마의 감각저하 및 전두근의 마비증상, 콧등의 붉어짐 및 통증, 삐뚤어진 코 등의 증상의 경우 기왕증이 존재하지 않았다는 점 외에 피고의 주의의무 위반으로 볼만한 별다른 사정이 보이지 않는 점 등을 종합할 때 제출된 증거들만으로는 피고의 주의의무 위반을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the violation of the duty to explain, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Defendant performed a co-operation, an operation to remove foreign substances on the part of the Plaintiff; (b) an operation to remove foreign substances on the part of the Plaintiff; (c) an operation to remove foreign substances on the part