2. Of the litigation costs, the plaintiffs and the defendants.

A. On September 11, 2015, the Plaintiffs are parents of the deceased netF (hereinafter “the deceased”) who was enrolled in the emergency room of the E Hospital operated by Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) and died, and Defendant C is a doctor who treated the deceased.

B. Around 02:58 on September 11, 2015, the Deceased’s head of the Defendant Hospital, and 1) the Deceased’s head of the Defendant Hospital, were sent to the emergency room of the Defendant Hospital at the address of the shot sense that he/she seems to be in the shot sense from the shot sense. (2) As a result of the shot examination on the Deceased of the Defendant Hospital, the Deceased had several symptoms even prior to three hours before the Defendant Hospital’s head of the hospital, and there was an opinion on the shotble calendars at the time of the health examination.

3) Defendant C asked Plaintiff B and the Deceased to conduct a X-ray test and a heart test, etc. for the purpose of distinguishing the cardiopulmonary eculation, based on the suspicion of fluorial eculation, Defendant C, but the Plaintiff B and the Deceased sought to refuse the examination, refuse the examination, and provide a injection for the adjustment of pain. 4) While the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital administered the amount of water, mountain agents, and dust control to the Deceased on September 11, 2015, he administered a mountain site to the Deceased on September 03:27, 2015. On the same day, the Plaintiff B and the Deceased had no beer than 03:28 on the same day, and repeatedly performed cardiopulmonary fluoral ecining while repeatedly performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

5) Although the medical team of the Defendant Hospital attempted to put the Deceased in the engine, it failed, and the Deceased continued to injecting the oxygen in the white valves, but no response was made on September 11, 2015, and transferred the Deceased to G hospital on September 03:43, 2015. (6) Although G hospital’s medical team continued cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the Deceased died.

C. As a result of the autopsy by the National Scientific Investigative Research Institute of the Deceased, the private person was presumed to be a acute scarcity.

The successor intervenor, upon the request of the plaintiff B, is the national pension recipient of the deceased, under the National Pension Act.