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

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 2010, the status of the parties A and B were married, and between them, the Plaintiff C and the deceased on July 31, 2010.

The Defendants are doctors who establish and operate the “La hospital” (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) which Plaintiff B received medical treatment.

B. Around March 8, 2010, Plaintiff B was diagnosed as a pair of birth at the Defendant Hospital, and was continuously diagnosed at the Defendant Hospital after receiving a medical examination at the Defendant Hospital. On July 12, 2010, Plaintiff B entered the Defendant Hospital as a symptoms of approximately 23 weeks after pregnancy, and the Defendant Hospital’s doctor M was examined by the Plaintiff B, and the Defendant Hospital’s doctor M was 38 meters in the early wave test, and the fetus’s condition was improved. M was directed the Plaintiff B of an absolute stability, and instructed the Plaintiff to take clothes twice a day by prescribing a written request for medical examination. The following day, the Plaintiff B: (a) was born to the Defendant Hospital; (b) the Defendant Hospital’s doctor M was examined by the Plaintiff B; and (c) the Defendant Hospital was 38 meters in length in the early wave test; and (d) the fetus was able to take clothes twice a day.

2) The Plaintiff recommended the professor to receive medical treatment (hereinafter referred to as “the first internal member”).

(2) On July 13, 2010, the Plaintiff B returned to the Defendant Hospital as a result of the e-mail surveillance test, and at the time, the nurse on duty could not have the e-mailed, and the fetus was in a normal condition. As a result of the e-mail test, the e-mail was closed.

The above on-duty nurse reported the results of the examination to Defendant D, who is a doctor on duty, and explained that he administered the pule propy test, who is a sulfur helmon, and received outpatient treatment.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second internal source”). Plaintiff B, around 09:00 on July 13, 2010 on the same day, re-entered to the Defendant Hospital, around 09:00 on July 13, 2010, and as a result, the doctor M was found to have been very short of 10 meters in the length of the womb landscape and to have been seen to be good.

M is at least 70% of the miscarriage probability to the plaintiff B.