Key Points
- Before surgery, blood transfusion, or general anesthesia that may pose serious risk to life or body, doctors must give an explanation and obtain written consent (Article 24-2(1) of the Medical Service Act).
- The explanation must cover the diagnosis, the necessity, method and content of the procedure, the explaining doctor and the principal surgeon, expected after-effects and side effects, and what the patient must observe (Article 24-2(2)).
- A violation carries an administrative fine of up to KRW 3 million (Article 92), and in a civil case you can claim compensation for non-economic damages for infringement of your right to choose.
- To recover damages for the entire outcome, a substantial causal link between the failure to explain and the outcome must be recognized (Supreme Court Decision 93Da52402, decided February 10, 1995).
Five things the doctor must tell you
- The diagnosis of the symptoms that the patient has or may develop
- Why the surgery or procedure is necessary, and its method and content
- The names of the explaining doctor and the principal doctor taking part in the surgery
- The after-effects and side effects typically expected from the surgery
- What the patient must follow before and after the surgery
If the surgical method or the principal surgeon changes after consent is obtained, the reason for and content of the change must also be given in writing (Article 24-2(4)). If the patient asks for a copy of the consent form, the hospital cannot refuse without justifiable reason (Article 24-2(3)), and an exception applies in emergencies where the delay caused by explaining would endanger the patient's life (proviso to Article 24-2(1)).
What you can claim
When surgery is performed without an explanation and a serious outcome results, the Supreme Court divides the claim in two. First, if you seek only compensation for non-economic damages for being deprived of the opportunity to choose and of your right to self-determination, you need only prove that there was no explanation or that it was inadequate. You do not have to prove that you would have avoided the outcome if you had been told. Second, if you seek all damages arising from the outcome, there must be a substantial causal link between the failure to explain and the serious outcome, and the failure to explain must be comparable to a breach of the duty of care in treatment (Supreme Court Decision 93Da52402, decided February 10, 1995).
Frequently Asked Questions
I already signed the consent form. Can I still argue that the explanation was inadequate?
The doctor I consulted and the doctor who actually operated were different.
Related Guides
Surgical and Procedural Accidents (Including Cosmetic)
In a surgical accident, the outcome is plain to see, but w…
Read more →Case TypeMedical Malpractice Damages Lawsuits
It is hard for a patient to prove directly what happened i…
Read more →Case TypeBirth Injuries and Newborn Injuries
A single quick decision in the delivery room can shape a c…
Read more →Procedure GuideMedical Lawsuit Procedure and Burden of Proof
A medical lawsuit is a fight over a treatment process the…
Read more →Procedure GuideCalculating Medical Malpractice Damages
Even for the same accident, the amount varies widely depen…
Read more →Procedure GuideMedical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration
At the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Age…
Read more →Written on the basis of Korean statutes in force (National Law Information Center, Ministry of Government Legislation) and court precedents as of October 20, 2026. Results may differ with amendments to the law or the facts of each case. This page is general information, not legal advice.
Written and reviewed by Attorney Dongwoo Shin — Ph.D. in Law; certified criminal law specialist and certified divorce law specialist registered with the Korean Bar Association. He handles each case personally from consultation to judgment. About the attorney →
Last updated October 20, 2026
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail