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

A. The relationship between the parties 1) Defendant F is the Central Institute of Education of the Defendant Educational Foundation (hereinafter “Defendant Educational Foundation”).

(ii) the Korea University Ansan Hospital operated by it (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”);

(2) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff C, D, and E are children of Plaintiff C, D, and E.

B. A’s hospital treatment and death 1) around September 2004, 2004: (a) around 1, 2004, she applied to the Gangseoansan Hospital; (b) was diagnosed with diverosis; (c) was performed by the tissue examination; and (d) was performed by prescribing hambrosis from that time until March 2010; (b) A was transferred to the instant hospital due to the change of residence on April 2010 and was inspected; and (c) the instant hospital was to observe A without the progress of hambrosis because it did not have aggravated all opinions on the same cambrat, etc. as that of the relocation surgery.

3) On September 16, 2010, A filed an appeal for a severe bruptosis, and the Defendant F applied for the instant hospital. The Defendant F determined that the bruptosis was conducted against A, and hospitalized treatment was conducted from October 13, 201 to October 26, 201, and conducted two times for the treatment of diversified species, and conducted two times for the treatment of radioactive rays, from December 2010, A transferred to the Samsung Seoul Hospital on April 201, A was hospitalized treatment from May 10 to May 19, 201, and received two times for cruptic surgery. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23277, Feb. 2, 2012>

5) On October 11, 2013, A was hospitalized in Samsung Seoul Hospital with a high-heat symptoms, and was hospitalized in Samsung Seoul Hospital with the diagnosis of “the Madar Madar Madar Madar Madar”, and died on November 23, 2013 (hereinafter “A”) (hereinafter “the deceased”).

(ii) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that they are faced with the precautionary threshold during driving around September 2010.