The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

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

With respect to the assertion that the procedure of the first instance judgment is invalid in violation of the law, the Plaintiffs asserted that the first instance judgment was conducted before the result of the fact-finding inquiry on the head of the Seoul Hospital at Macheon National University upon the Plaintiffs’ request and that the procedure is invalid in violation

(See Article 417 of the Civil Procedure Act). We examine the following: (a) On December 16, 2014, in the proceeding of the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs filed an application for a fact-finding with the president of the Seoul Hospital of the Macheon-do University; and (b) on January 12, 2016, prior to the arrival of the results of the fact-finding inquiry, the facts of the first instance judgment rendered on August 25, 2015 is apparent.

However, according to the records of this case on the other hand, the fact that the attorney of the plaintiffs appeared at the seventh day of pleading in the court of first instance (as of July 14, 2015), and withdrawn an application for fact inquiry as of December 16, 2014, can be acknowledged as being stated in the pleading protocol at the above date of pleading. Thus, unless there are other counter-proofs, the contents of the pleading have strong probative value to the extent of presumption that they are true unless there are other special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da87379, Feb. 11, 2010). Thus, the above fact inquiry application asserted by the plaintiffs was already withdrawn before the judgment of the court of first instance, and the fact inquiry results by the head of the Seoul Hospital at the Incheon National University Hospital at which the court of first instance arrived late after the judgment of first instance were not based on the judgment of the court of first instance as of January 12, 2016.