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 Plaintiff (a) is a person who was performed an operation by Defendant F, a doctor working at the Defendant Hospital at the G Hospital operated by Defendant E (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), and Plaintiff B is the husband, Plaintiff C, and D of the Plaintiff.

B. On September 22, 2003, Plaintiff A’s past history: (a) the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital complained of the pain and fluorous pain; (b) on the same day, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital conducted the MRI test for Plaintiff A; and (c) as a result, the Plaintiff’s medical personnel from 2:00 to 3:00 to 4:00 to 4:00 to 4:00 to 4:00 to 4-5; (c) the Plaintiff’s medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital was able to undergo a surgery by explaining the overall operation method and photographs to the Plaintiff and his guardian on September 23, 2003; and (d) the Plaintiff’s medical personnel attempted to undergo a surgery again after 10:10 to 4-5 to 4-5 to 4:00 to 130 to 10.

3) After that, from around 2004, Plaintiff A complained of the pain, hacker, and reproductive sensing symptoms, etc., and the symptoms of Plaintiff A aggravated around 2007 to 2008. 4) on May 12, 2010, Plaintiff A complained of the pain, hacker, packer, hand, and hacker that the sense of hacks of hacker, hacker, and hacker, and that its power decline.

Accordingly, on May 19, 2010, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital conducted the inspection of RI and CT with the Plaintiff on the part of May 19, 2010. As a result, from No. 2 to No. 3 of the chronology, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital showed a view of pressure on scarcity and upper scarcity pressure due to the chronological typhrosis and yellow typhrosis, and the number between the two times in the 4-5 trend appears to have been partly damaged, and as to the above chronology, the Defendant.