1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the parties 1) Defendant E Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant E Hospital”);

(2) The Plaintiff A’s spouse, Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff D are children of Plaintiff A, as follows: (a) the purpose of which is the clinical education and treatment of students in the medical sciences of E; and (b) Defendant F is the doctor affiliated with the outside of the fixed body of Defendant Hospital. (c) The Plaintiff A was a person who was operated to remove a signboard at Defendant Hospital; and (d) Plaintiff B’s spouse, Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff D are children.

B. On March 31, 2011, Plaintiff A’s Defendant Hospital and Plaintiff A’s first surgery 1) conducted an examination of the escape from the 4-5 post-presidential test as a result of the inspection conducted by Malian conducted by Plaintiff A, who was within the Defendant Hospital and the first surgery conducted by Plaintiff A on March 31, 2011. Plaintiff A was transferred to Defendant Hospital on March 31, 201.

Defendant F diagnosed Defendant F as the main pain (e.g., tamper, the right-hand rayer, etc.) that the Plaintiff complained of and was the escape certificate of the 4-5-tample based on the results of the inspection conducted by the said I. M. F. A.

3) On March 31, 2011, Plaintiff A’s hospitalization at Defendant Hospital and removal of the emergency signboards from Defendant F from Defendant F around April 9, 201 at around 9:00 (hereinafter “the first operation of this case”).

(c) Plaintiff A’s symptoms of sewage to the right part of the Plaintiff A, and the second surgery 1) Plaintiff A complained of the symptoms of satisfying sewage (hereinafter “instant symptoms”) to the right part of the Defendant hospital on April 7, 2011 while being hospitalized at the Defendant hospital after the surgery.

Around 00:30 on April 8, 201, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital conducted a test on the Plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as “instant test”). Around 00:30, the reading result was that “the occurrence, etc. of agricultural or fishery species on the part of the surgery” was made.

2 Defendant F: (a) explained to Plaintiff A that it is difficult to clearly diagnose the cause of the instant symptoms only with the result of the instant test conducted by the Plaintiff A; (b) opened an operation division to clarify the reason why the symptoms have occurred; and (c) performed an operation around 12:00 on April 8, 201.