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

On July 7, 2011, the deceased E (hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”) was subject to a disguised health examination conducted by the F Council members of the Korea Health Care Association (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”) as Defendant D’s representative director.

On July 7, 2011, the inspector of the instant hospital taken images by conducting a disguised management inspection on the Deceased, and the G of the film medical specialist employed by Defendant D was read as normal opinion on the Deceased with the images taken by Defendant D as such.

On July 13, 2011, Defendant D notified the Deceased of the result of the examination that “I have a normal condition as a result of the examination of a senior design. In the absence of symptoms, such as malm, fire extinguishing, etc., I shall undergo a regular inspection after two years.”

However, the deceased was diagnosed 4 times as a result of the internal and organizational tests conducted at the Ansan Hospital at Korea University on January 9, 2012.

On January 10, 2012, the Deceased received an anti-pactacy treatment from the above hospital and the hospital located in Daejeon, and died on February 5, 2013.

Plaintiff

A The wife, the plaintiff B, and C are children of the deceased.

【In the absence of dispute, the Defendant D’s assertion of the purport of each description, image, and pleading of Gap’s Nos. 1 through 8, 13 through 15, and Eul’s Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number of partial headings) was made a doctor G to read a disguised management inspection on the deceased. Although it was possible to discover a sufficient early heading in the reading process, the Defendant D’s assertion was made a doctor G to read the disguised management inspection on the deceased at a normal level due to negligence. Accordingly, the deceased lost the opportunity to receive appropriate treatment by discovering the above cancer at an early stage.

In addition, the defendant D can be seen as being subject to another additional inspection by sufficiently explaining the limit and possibility of misunderstanding as a false crypological examination.