A doctor who was disciplined for using some industrial adhesives in the hair transplant process filed an objection lawsuit and finally won the case in the Supreme Court.



The second division of the Supreme Court confirmed the ruling in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by dermatologist A against the Ministry of Health and Welfare, saying, "Please revoke the suspension of the doctor's license for one month."



In November 2016, dermatologist A used 'object adhesion' spray to attach and fix the transplanted hair strands together while performing lower abdominal hair transplant surgery on an alopecia patient.



Mr. A did not spray the spray directly on the skin, but part of it touched the patient's skin during the bonding process.



The patient filed a complaint with the health center claiming side effects caused by this.



In February 2020, the Ministry of Health and Welfare issued a disciplinary action, saying that Mr. A's actions amounted to 'immoral medical treatment' under the Medical Act.



The reason was that he harmed the patient by using a spray for bonding objects whose safety had not been verified.



The Medical Act allows doctors to be punished for violating professional ethics, such as using unlicensed medicines.



In the lawsuit filed by Mr. A, the first trial court ruled that the disciplinary action was appropriate as the safety and effectiveness of the adhesive was not verified.



On the other hand, the appellate court judged that Mr. A's act was not an immoral medical treatment prohibited by the Medical Act.



The Court of Appeal judged that the adhesive used by Mr. A was a 'quasi-drug' such as a bandage, not an unlicensed drug, so it was not an immoral medical practice.



At the same time, Mr. A accepted the protest that he used it for the purpose of attaching hair and hair, not spraying directly on the skin.



In addition, there were cases where the same adhesive was used in other hospitals, and the reason that it was difficult to attribute the symptoms experienced by Mr. A to the adhesive was also heard.



Even if the adhesive is viewed as a 'medicine', the court saw that the procedure was not a matter for disciplinary action, saying that the procedure had undergone procedures to confirm medical safety and effectiveness and had been introduced in medical textbooks.



The Supreme Court also concluded that the judgment of the appellate court was valid.



The patient also sued Mr. A for business negligence, but the prosecution dismissed the case in November 2020 after additional investigations.