2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are the inheritors of the deceased E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and F is the caregiver in charge of the G Care Center of a social welfare foundation hospitalized by the Deceased (hereinafter referred to as “the instant medical center”). The Defendant is the insurer who entered into an insurance contract with the instant medical center on its business liability and its professional liability for damages.

While the Deceased admitted to the instant medical care center and received medical treatment and examination at H Hospital and I Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”) on June 27, 2015, the Deceased complained of “the chronic and respiratory distress” while receiving medical treatment, and was conducted at the instant hospital on June 29, 2015, and did not have any special abnormal medical examination.

On August 24, 2015, the Deceased complained of urine disorders and urines, and was subject to urology by her urology, and was conducted at the same hospital on August 26, 2015, and on August 28, 201 and 31, but no special urology was found.

On September 3, 2015, the medical care center entrusted the deceased with the taking of clothes in relation to the deceased’s appeal for pain, and on September 15, 2015, the deceased did not take CT photography. On September 15, 2015, the deceased taken CT on September 16, 2015 after receiving medical treatment at the instant hospital.

On September 19, 2015, the deceased presented his opinion to prevent cage cage on the right side of the chest CT. On September 22, 2015, the deceased was hospitalized in the emergency room of the instant hospital on the same day after being hospitalized in the department inside the same day.

On September 24, 2015, the Deceased was proved to have been infected with blood on the right-hand chest, and was before his/her chest on September 25, 2015, and was subject to a scarcity examination on September 29, 2015.

At the time, the deceased showed an opinion on the catus catus, which is presumed to be different from the time of occurrence in the catus of nuclear medical examination. On November 5, 2015, the deceased was diagnosed on the catus catus (No. 11, No. 4, 5, and 6) at the instant hospital (No. 11, No. 11, No. 4, 5, and 6), the catus catus (No. 10), the blood satis,

presumed.