1. All of the claims of plaintiffs B, C and I expanded in the plaintiffs' appeal and trial are dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A related to the parties is a person who has undergone a basin expansion operation at a Gmarology medical clinic (hereinafter “Defendant 1 hospital”) and Hmarology medical clinic (hereinafter “Defendant 2 hospital”). Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff C, and I are the children of Plaintiff 1, Defendant E is the director of Defendant 1 hospital, and Defendant F is the director of Defendant 2 hospital.

B. 1) On December 21, 2006, Plaintiff A’s surgery at Defendant 1 Hospital (hereinafter “the first surgery”) with the inner diameter from Defendant E 1’s hospital, referring to the amount of money from Defendant E.

(2) On October 4, 2007, the plaintiff A received the first operation and conducted the first operation, and launched a scambling room 7 days after the first operation. In addition, the defendant E carried out the second operation of the relic removal (hereinafter referred to as the "the second operation") of the relic removal (hereinafter referred to as the "the second operation") on the ground that the scambling of the upper part of the left part of the chest after the first operation was destroyed by the roof, and that the scambling was worn up for two months to correct the scambling.

After that, the plaintiff A complained of the phenomenon of breast-feeding and breast-feeding.

C. 1) The Plaintiff A’s surgery at Defendant 2 Hospital (hereinafter “third-party surgery”) on November 5, 2008 from Defendant F to Defendant F’s 2 hospital (hereinafter “third-party surgery”).

(2) Plaintiff A’s appeal was received. (2) At the end of the third operation, both sides complained of that they were stituous, and Defendant F, on November 20, 2008, removed the refratative regrative regrative regratives of the Defendant F, and ever 1/2 through 2/3 of all chests while performing the regrative, regrative and regrative surgery (hereinafter “fourth surgery”).

3) Defendant F may charge the Plaintiff A with a salt card due to the heating in a reservoir, and perform an operation to remove a relice on April 3, 2009 (hereinafter “five-party operation”).

AB implemented this Act.

Even after that, the plaintiff A is her chest and her fry.