1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,000,000 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 45,000,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of them, from August 18, 2016 to June 1, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) on August 18, 2016, and the Defendant is the employer of the Defendant’s medical staff at the Defendant Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

B. At around 09:20 on July 26, 2016, the Deceased, who was enrolled at a professional law school, sold the clothes at Dog-ro Dog-ro at Dog-ro, and the Plaintiff B, who discovered this, requested emergency transfer to 119.

C. On July 26, 2016, the Deceased arrived at the emergency room of the Defendant Hospital.

According to the emergency measures taken by the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital, the deceased's activeness was stable, but consciousness was mixed, and symptoms were exposed to the telegraph.

Since then, on August 9, 2016, the medical professionals of the Defendant Hospital added the tubes by performing an institutional rheatation on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased.

On August 18, 2016, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital was replaced by the engine around 14:45.

However, around 14:49, after the removal of the above Pib, mass transfusion occurred at the engine renovation of the deceased, and thus, the medical professionals at the Defendant hospital conducted terropulmonary and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, etc., but did not recover from the vitality of the deceased until 15:56.

E. Ultimately, on August 18, 2016, the Deceased died of a physical form by blood transfusion around 16:55.

According to the result of the autopsy by the National Scientific Investigation Institute, the deceased’s private person is “consulous joints between the institution due to damage to his arms headed beer (the 4-5 cm length first powdered from the large beer) and the headed beer beer (the phenomenon is connected to one another due to a hole between the bloodline and the institution).”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 9 evidence, Eul's 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

(a) whether there has been negligence in the process of engine renovations and engine replacements 1) The relevant medical knowledge and engine renovations are general and 3,4 and 3, and 4, each of which is an operation by cutting the engine and inserting the tubes, etc.