All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne individually by each person.

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph 2. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment is as follows. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment, including the summary thereof, is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. On the 5th page 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, the part to be dismissed or added, “this Court” of the 11th instance court as “the first instance court”.

The "each of the above evidence" in the first instance judgment 7th 8th 7th 7th - "the result of the request for appraisal of medical records to the above evidence and the IOO of this court".

Article 8 of the first instance judgment No. 8 of the same Act provides that “I did not exist, and at the time Plaintiff A was subject to the inspection of the second wave of this case, I would immediately have the right time.” The right time immediately after the distribution is determined as “I would like to have the yellow ray or the back-of-the-hand ray wing light frequently occurred compared to other time, and it would occur well at the right edge.”

The following shall be added to the 8th judgment of the first instance, 15th judgment "no":

“The plaintiffs (the plaintiffs), most both sides in the case of a long-term liquid species confirmed by the plaintiffs A, and in the beginning of the cancer, only one side is high. At the time of the first-wave test in this case, it was found that the form of the plaintiff A was limited to the right side of the plaintiff A at the time of the second-wave test in this case. At that time, the plaintiff A was in the state of scarcity A at that time.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above circumstances alleged by the plaintiffs, and the circumstance alleged by the plaintiffs was that the plaintiff A was in the 1st century at the time of the initial test of the case.

It is difficult to conclude that the following is added to the judgment of the first instance court 9 Myeon 14 Myeon 14.

“A medical professionals (the Defendant explained the Plaintiff on the dysia test, but the Plaintiff refused to conduct an additional test. However, the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital explained the possibility of the above dysia test to the Plaintiff A on the basis of the result of the dysia test, or however, the Plaintiff A explained the possibility of the dysia test to the Plaintiff.