손해배상(의)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons for this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows, except for the determination of addition as to the assertion that the plaintiffs stressed or added in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence
(The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the facts finding in the first instance court and the judgment are justifiable even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court was presented to this court.
A. 1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion on delay in treatment of the A upper-tier medical examination is as follows: ① at the time of the emergency medical examination of the Defendant Hospital, the Deceased was under the A upper-tier medical examination up to three times the normal person; ② at the time of the A upper-tier medical examination; ③ the Defendant Hospital’s medical personnel was aware of the A upper-tier medical examination of the deceased from the beginning; ④ the Deceased showed symptoms (e.g., the heart medical examination, chest, chest, and heart) to continuously suspect the A upper-tier medical examination while waiting in the emergency room; ④ The Deceased’s medical personnel could have been sufficiently suspected of worsening the A upper-tier medical examination of the deceased due to the A upper-tier medical examination; ⑤ Nevertheless, the Defendant Hospital’s medical personnel did not perform the treatment of the A upper-tier medical examination of the deceased’s injury up to the time of his death; and the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel’s negligence caused the A upper-tier medical examination of the deceased and caused the A upper-tier medical examination of the deceased’s injury.
However, the evidence submitted alone is insufficient to conclude this.