All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and defendant D are borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 4, and 6

A. As to the first and second points, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the brain damage suffered by the Plaintiff A was caused by the negligence of performing only the natural subdivision through the only inhaled solution while Defendant D was severely in the process of delivery of the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s judgment that partially inappropriate points in its reasoning, but recognized Defendant D’s negligence in selecting the method of delivery, is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules

B. On the third ground of its stated reasoning, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the medical personnel of the F Hospital operated by Defendant D did not take appropriate measures against the Plaintiff’s symptoms of the Plaintiff A’s hysium and of low-income bracket, but did not promptly transfer the Plaintiff’s symptoms to a higher hospital, and thereby, the Plaintiff A’s symptoms have deteriorated.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the aforementioned determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

C. As to the fourth ground for appeal, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that Defendant D violated the Plaintiff C’s right to self-determination on the selection of delivery method by failing to fulfill its duty to explain the risk of sunset and the risk of inhaled delivery.

The judgment below

relevant reasons.