1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a doctor operating the F Councilor (hereinafter “Defendant Councilor”) of Songpa-gu Seoul E building 126, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and the Plaintiff C (G) was a patient who was admitted to the Defendant Councilor and was treated by the Defendant on October 13, 2014, and the Plaintiff A and B are the parents of Plaintiff C.

B. On October 13, 2014, Plaintiff C received medical treatment from the Defendant as the Plaintiff’s member of the Defendant due to the symptoms of clothes and Gutopy around October 11, 2014. As a result, Plaintiff C did not feel abnormal, her body temperature was normal, and her body temperature was not recorded, and there was a little pressure at the time of promoting the upper part of the body, and showed a little number of sacrific symptoms.

(2) The defendant diagnosed the plaintiff C's symptoms as non-specific long-term spatitis, and administered the amount, and returned the above plaintiff at around 12:30 on the same day.

(3) On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff C’s parents, on the grounds of Plaintiff C’s pain and additional note, were provided medical treatment to Plaintiff C, who was placed in the emergency room of the Seoul Asan Hospital. As a result of the examination, Plaintiff C was diagnosed as a high-chlorate and was diagnosed on May 15, 2014 at the above hospital.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims

A. The plaintiffs' assertion (1) is the most common disease during the period of 12-18 years of age, in particular, that a rapid growth of the high-pressure gas has occurred, and in the case of the plaintiff C, the plaintiff complained of the pain and stomat symptoms for a long time, and applied to the defendant Council member. Although the above plaintiff's symptoms are highly high-pressure, the defendant was negligent in a wrong diagnosis of the above plaintiff's symptoms due to non-specific long-term stopitis.

(2) The Defendant failed to fully explain the Plaintiff B by closely observing the Plaintiff C’s condition and talking about visiting the next day.