1. All appeals by the plaintiffs against the defendants are dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the court of first instance modifies “678 closely contacters” of the 11th instance judgment to “678 emergency patients in an emergency room”; and (b) this court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a supplementary decision as to the part asserted by the plaintiff as the grounds for appeal as follows; (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main

2. Supplementary judgment

A. On May 27, 2015, the plaintiffs' assertion 1) around 14, 2015, at the time when the patient was in the emergency room of the defendant hospital, the patient was suspected of having been in the emergency room of the defendant hospital. Thus, even though the medical team of the defendant hospital should have taken measures such as isolation of the patient at 14 times to prevent the patient from being infected by others, the medical team of the defendant hospital neglected to assign the patient at 14 times to the patient beds of the central treatment zone and assign the patient at 14 times to the patient beds of the patient at 14 times, so that the plaintiff et al. who was in the first medical care hospital infection from the patient at 14 times. 2) The examination results of the examination of medical records on the request of the head of Qa hospital and the fact inquiry, and the following facts or circumstances, namely, ① the level of clinical medicine and the emergency room of the patient at 14 times, it is difficult to recognize the patient's current measures of isolation and isolation of the patient.

It is deemed unlawful in light of the empirical or logical rule, to the extent that it is considerably unreasonable.