1. Of the part against Defendant medical corporations C and D in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount exceeds the amount ordered to be paid.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the “Defendant F” of the first instance judgment at the bottom of the second instance judgment is deemed F as “F”. Therefore, this part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of the first instance judgment.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion is examined in accordance with the type of negligence described in the grounds for appeal as of January 21, 2019 and the preparatory documents as of March 6, 2019.

1) Although the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital including Defendant E, in the summary of the Plaintiffs’ assertion of transitional observation (Defendant E part) diagnosed the symptoms of the deceased child as a supke group and was hospitalized the deceased child into the Defendant hospital by threatening to have a difficulty in respiratory, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital, including Defendant E, did not closely observe the respiratory conditions of the deceased child from around December 21, 2016 when the deceased was hospitalized in the Defendant hospital until around 05:32 of the same month when there was abnormal symptoms to the deceased.

B. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 4-5 and No. 4-5 and No. 1-5, it can be acknowledged that the medical professionals in the Defendant Hospital measured the absorption and beer of the deceased children from December 21, 2016 to December 22, 2016, when the deceased children was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital, from December 12:00 to 05:32 of the same month, and did not enter them in the medical records.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence and evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 12, the result of the request for the appraisal of medical records to the L Association Director of the court of first instance, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the medical personnel of Defendant Hospital diagnosed the symptoms of the deceased to cuppulp Group, hospitalized the deceased at the Defendant Hospital, and confirmed whether the respiratory distress occurred through the diagnosis and the hupule, and then confirmed whether the respiratory distress occurred through the hupule and the hupule. At the time, the hupule seems to have no hupule symptoms. ② The hupule symptoms were found to have occurred to the deceased on December 21, 2016. However, there were signs such as the hupule and the hupule symptoms caused to the deceased.