The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 20, 2018, the network D (hereinafter “the network”) sought an emergency room of the E Hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) in the main lake and marsh, as the main lake and marsh for the number of copies remaining in the morning from May 20, 2018.

B. At the time of the medical examination conducted at the emergency room of the Defendant Hospital, the Deceased was in the state of severe spP 26.13mg/dL (the normal 0.3mmm) and D-Dimer 1.31m/mL (the normal 0-0.4), pro-bladein (procalciton) 26.57 ng/mL, etc., and as a result, the shape was observed in a state of severe spathosis. As a result of the GT examination conducted by the Defendant Hospital, there was a suspicion of 10cm or more on the right-side farming, the breadth and the shape was sponed towards the upper part.

C. Accordingly, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital administered hydropathic and empirical antibiotics to the Deceased. Around May 20, 2018, at around 22:43, he/she performed crypary farming therapy. Around May 21, 2018, he/she hospitalized the Deceased as a general hospital room and observed the progress.

At around 01:00 on May 21, 2018, the Deceased’s blood pressure was lowered by 81/72m Hg, etc.

Accordingly, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital supplied hydrogen and oxygen, and around 02:00 on May 21, 2018, the number of heart stuffed was continuously high, but around 08:05, while the number of heart stuffed by the deceased increased the amount of oxygen supplied, the deceased was measured as 170 rate of heart stuffed by 170, and the her chest complained of the answer symptoms.

E. On May 21, 2018, the Deceased received treatment such as an in-house insertion, etc., and during the process observation, the cardiopulmonary resuscitation occurred around 15:24 on May 21, 2018, and the Defendant Hospital’s medical professionals received cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but was unable to recover, and died in a shock shock and multi-institutional charging.

F. The Plaintiffs are parents of the Deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital asserted by the Plaintiffs committed the following medical negligence in the course of treating the Deceased:

As such, the employer of the medical staff of the defendant hospital is the employer.