1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Around May 2009, the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff” only if it is not necessary to specify the Plaintiff) went to the Gwangju Veterans Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Hospital”) affiliated with the Defendant at night, and went to the same year.

6. 22. The pre-permanent ship was diagnosed with a 52gm of a pre-permanent ship with a 52gm of a pre-prisoned ship, and was subject to pharmacologic treatment such as anti-portcin.

B. Around September 14, 2009, the Plaintiff was subject to cruptive measures against the bitrosis of a pre-divided vessel. On October 7 of the same year, 2009, the Plaintiff was subject to cruptive measures (TUR-P; hereinafter “instant surgery”).

C. While the Plaintiff temporarily decreased urology after the surgery, the Plaintiff filed for a new urology from December 26, 2009, and started to use a new urology system on the ground that urology had re-exploited urology, and thereafter, received a medication of epidemic agents, such as Alphacinomic agents, beer, and dynamic agents until 2011, and received the provision of the urology system.

At present, the plaintiff has symptoms of urology, night urology, donation, and epidemism.

E. Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C, D, and E are their children.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1, Eul evidence No. 4-8, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3-5, Eul evidence No. 3-5 (including each number, if any)

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion that the urology and the doctor of the defendant hospital recommended urology treatment while the plaintiff's urology and urology had improved due to pharmacologic treatment. The plaintiff's urology and the doctor caused urology damage in the course of the operation of the instant case. The urology and the urology of the instant surgery were wrong without properly explaining the side effects of urcology and the urcology of urcology. As a result, the plaintiff aggravated urcology and aggravated urcology.