A. On May 10, 2015, Defendant H, a caregiver, was admitted to I, a sanatorium for the elderly, as the representative of Defendant G, suffered injury, such as an injury to Defendant H, on the part of Defendant H, on May 10, 2015, due to the death of the deceased, and there was no open address in two areas, such as a light-bris and sewage, and an injury to the blood transfusion, etc. without open address in two areas.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

On January 17, 2016, the Deceased died as a death directly, and B (3/21 shares in inheritance), C, and D (2/21 shares in inheritance) will be the inheritor of the Deceased, and E, F (7/21 shares in inheritance), and F (7/21 shares in inheritance) will be the heir of the Deceased.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap’s 1 through 5, 8 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiffs asserted that "the defendant G has a duty to safely protect the deceased pursuant to the long-term care service contract concluded with the deceased, and the defendant H, as a caregiver, violated his duty to pay attention to the safety of the deceased and caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, the defendants jointly are liable to compensate the plaintiffs who are the heir of the deceased's family members." The defendants asserted that "the deceased was suffering from dementia, etc. with other inmates, and the defendants asserted that they were suffering from dementia, etc., and that the deceased suffered from the disease with other inmates, and they suffered the injury by Defendant H as the deceased suffered from the injury as the deceased was pushed over with Defendant H, and therefore, they are not liable to compensate the defendants.

B. The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap 1, Gap 1, 7, and Eul 1 through 4 (including numbers, if available, including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the pleadings, were the elderly aged 88 years old at the time of the instant accident. In other words, the deceased was suffering from symptoms, such as memory disorder due to dementia, spatience disorder, spatitual disorder, reputation, and distribution, and the long-term care service contract.