1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties 1) The network E (hereinafter “the network”).

G Hospital located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hospital”) as follows:

(2) Defendant C is an employer who employs Defendant D while operating the Defendant Hospital, and Defendant D works at Defendant D’s hospital, and is a sexual surgery medical specialist who performed an internal, external, sexual surgery, etc. against the deceased.

B. 1) On July 8, 2016, the Deceased was consulted with the Defendant Hospital on cosmetic type on the implementation and discharge of cosmetic type, etc. at the Defendant Hospital. On July 30, 2016, the Deceased was under consultation with the Defendant Hospital. On July 30, 2016, the Deceased’s blood test at the Defendant Hospital at the Defendant Hospital for the Deceased before the surgery, and as a result of the heart test, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital began to perform the surgery for the Deceased, and began to anesthesia around 14:00 on July 30, 2016.

3) On July 30, 2016, H, the doctor of the Defendant Hospital, performed a sex surgery on the deceased’s eye and part of the body, from around 14:25 to 17:56, and Defendant D, from around 18:19 to 19:21 on the same day, performed a sex surgery on the deceased’s eye and part of the body. Defendant D, as the “instant surgery” (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

4) After the instant surgery, the Deceased was transferred to the sick room of the Defendant Hospital. From July 30, 2016, the medical professionals of the Defendant Hospital continuously observed the conditions of the Deceased’s active strength, mass, part of the surgery, etc., and the quantity recorded in the nursing record book is as follows.

On July 30, 2016, 10:20 20 2/20 22/3/00 5/7 July 31, 2016, 1:02:0 8/800 8/804:00 12/200 06/200 06:25/255 of the Defendant Hospital was the doctor on duty of the Defendant Hospital, who had been the doctor on duty of the Defendant Hospital of 02:0 8/800 8/204/200 12/206:0 15/255 of the day’s volume (c) / left her part of the surgery, but the degree of the charge is not serious, and she listens to and removes the charge on July 31, 2016.