1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance is as follows: “The above evidence and evidence No. 19 and No. 24 of the first instance judgment shall be examined according to the above evidence and evidence No. 14 of the second instance judgment; “The above evidence and evidence No. 19 and No. 24 of the second instance judgment,” and the part of the first instance judgment No. 2 of the first instance judgment No. 10 to 20 of the second instance judgment No. 10, 30, 2010, 30, 30, 30, 40, 10, 10, 10, 20, 20, 10, 20, 20, 10, 20, 20, 30, 10, 20, 20, 20, 10, 30, 20, 20, 20, 30, 20, 30, 2010.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the unit of this case did not properly treat the brain functional disorder and mental symptoms of the deceased, and that the police hospital did not conduct an interview with the deceased formally even though it prescribed an anti-opic agents, and did not properly cope with the deceased's aggravation of depression or the signs of suicide, etc., and even after receiving a report on the will that the deceased attempted suicide, it did not take any specific measure without properly investigating the situation or the reason for attempted suicide, and thus, the officers of the unit of this case neglected to control and supervise the deceased.