1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The party-related Plaintiff A is a patient who has been administered a self-flainary surgery from Defendant D, the father and doctor of the Defendant hospital, at E Hospital operated by Defendant Incorporated Foundation C (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A.

B. Plaintiff A’s birth and treatment 1) inserted B in 2009, after receiving a diagnosis that there was a self-finite species, Plaintiff A was a self-finite species, and then reduced the size of the self-finite species. 2) Plaintiff A was subject to a re-finite test on June 2010. As a result, the size of the profin species was 8.6 cm, and the size of the profin species was 8.6 cm. However, the re-expinary test was conducted on March 19, 201, but there was no change in the size of the profin species.

C. On March 24, 2011, Plaintiff A was admitted to the Defendant Hospital for the treatment of prone species. On the same day, the medical professionals at the Defendant Hospital confirmed that there was a prone m of 9.1cm in size on the part of the Plaintiff, x 7.5cm in size, 6.9cm in average diameter, and 4.1cm in average diameter. In addition, Plaintiff A was again admitted to the Defendant Hospital on Aug. 1, 2011, and the medical professionals at the Defendant Hospital were conducted a prone test for the Plaintiff A on the same day, and that there was a prone m of 4.1cm in average diameter. In addition, Plaintiff A was found to have no specific opinion on the result of the blood test conducted on the same day and the self-finite cancer cancer test conducted on August 1, 2011. The medical professionals at the Defendant Hospital were still inspected on the part of the Plaintiff.

The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital decided to conduct the instant surgery to preserve the spawnosis among various surgery methods to treat Plaintiff A’s spawnosis (hereinafter “instant surgery”). D.

(1) On August 17, 201, Plaintiff A received the instant treatment from Defendant D, who was within the productive medicine clinic of the Defendant hospital (inception to the outer insemination clinic).

Plaintiff

A, after the instant procedure, did not appeal to the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital for any special symptoms or inconvenience, and the Defendant.