2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

The court's reasoning on this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the third-party 5 or 8 of Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[고쳐 쓰는 부분] 『2) 피고 병원 의료진은 자발성 기흉에 대한 외과적 치료를 위하여 2014. 7. 23. 및 2014. 8. 11. 각 흉관삽관술을, 2014. 8. 14. 및 2014. 8. 20. 각 흉막유착술[당시 압노바 비스쿰(Abnoba viscum)을 투여하였다]을, 2014. 8. 31. 중심정맥삽관술을 각 시행하였다.

The medical professionals at Defendant Hospital asserted that the deceased had been administered voluntarily to the deceased without the consent of the deceased or his guardian or without any explanation as to side effects, etc. in the clinical process of his claim and judgment. The results of the fact-finding on the Minister of Food and Drug Safety in the first instance of the judgment are insufficient to recognize that the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital had administered the deceased at his own discretion, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. This part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit. The medical professionals at Defendant Hospital’s hospital asserted the negligence in Mamulsing the Defendant Hospital, on July 23, 2014, aggravated the body of the deceased by causing damage to the deceased’s pulmonary prescription, and thus, it was unreasonable to deem the deceased to have been injected at his own expense on August 11, 2014, with the spaculing system of chest, and the causes of the death of the deceased, such as the age of the deceased, and the causes of the spaculing.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence revealed earlier, the Repulmonary and medical personnel within the Defendant Hospital from the Embryptian on August 4, 2014, which was subsequent to the pleination of the Deceased on July 23, 2014.