1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff C gave birth to Plaintiff A at the G University Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) operated by the Defendant, and Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff C and the father of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is the employer of the medical personnel who established and operated the Defendant Hospital, who was in charge of only the portion of Plaintiff A.

B. The plaintiff C was a woman with the experience of giving birth to the first child in the Ethical king, and around April 10, 2006, the plaintiff C was pregnant the plaintiff A and received a periodic reexamination at the Ganyang University Hospital on the part of the defendant's hospital for natural delivery (VBAC, Vainal birth After, hereinafter referred to as "bagin") after the king. The plaintiff C was transferred to the defendant hospital on April 10, 2006.

C. The scheduled date of delivery of Plaintiff C was April 27, 2006, but around April 17, 2006, around April 24, 2006, around May 2, 2006, and around May 2, 2006, the Defendant hospital received each of the pre-treatment diagnosis at the Defendant hospital. According to the results of the pre-treatment diagnosis until that time, the fetus was normal, and the pre-treatment condition was good.

Plaintiff

C was hospitalized at the Defendant Hospital on May 6, 2006, which was the second day of pregnancy 41 week, for the sake of inducement, around May 6, 2006, and at the time of hospitalization, the degree of 1 cm in the landscape of the womb and 60% in the loss of the womb for the womb.

E. Medical professionals at the Defendant Hospital conducted the Plaintiff’s blood test, chest X-ray test, and the cardioscopic scopic scopic brison test (hereinafter “Nitic scopic scopic scopic scopic test”) to verify the condition of the fetus.

F. On May 6, 2006, around 12:30 on May 6, 2006, the Plaintiff C’s outlined Plaintiff C’s self-employed landscape, and about 60% of the size of the self-employed landscape room, the Defendant hospital’s medical professionals continued to run the Plaintiff C’s proison E1/2 (100glstlstlstlstlstlstlstl), for the purpose of inducing the luxization of the self-employed paglstlstlstlstl (prostlstlstl, misstlstlstlstlstl), since there was almost no change in the degree of the Plaintiff’s self-employed paglstlstl and the part of the self-employed paglstlstlstl.