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

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

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each additional evidence submitted to the court of first instance is presented to this court.

Accordingly, the reasoning for the judgment of the court on the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The 8th 10th 10th am below the judgment of the first instance shall be added as follows, and the 8th 11th am "B" of the judgment of the first instance shall be added as "C," and the 16th am "C." of the judgment of the first instance shall be added as "D."

As the medical practice of “B.” is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, it is extremely difficult for a general person, who is not an expert, to clarify whether he/she has breached the duty of care in the medical process of a doctor, or whether there exists causation between the violation of the duty of care and the occurrence of losses. Therefore, it is also possible to presume that the symptoms occur to a patient during the surgery as medical negligence by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to see that there is any other reason than the medical negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da6328, Jul. 7, 2000). However, even in such a case, it is not permissible to prove that the symptoms occur due to a doctor’s negligence by presumptioning the causal relationship between the doctor’s negligence and the result without negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da66328, Oct. 28, 2004; 2002Da4185, Apr. 5, 2005).