1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The defendant is an incorporated foundation that operates the Seoul Asan Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital"), and the plaintiff A received an operation twice at the defendant hospital as follows, and the plaintiff B's spouse and the plaintiff C's children.

Plaintiff

A has been subject to pharmacologic treatment from around 2000 to around June 2002, and had been administered at the Yong-Nam Hospital as the heart tax Dong around April 2003, respectively. Since around 2007, it had been within the Defendant hospital as a heart (which is the basis of two hearts) and had been continuously treated by the Defendant hospital from around 2007.

As the above continuous treatment did not go back, Plaintiff A was hospitalized in Defendant Hospital on May 5, 2015, and on May 7, 2015, Plaintiff A was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital and received a cardiopulmonary surgery from the chest and medical personnel (hereinafter “first surgery”).

At this time, the above medical personnel applied artificial heart destruction to the above plaintiff while changing the method of the operation to the right chest to the upper gate of the above plaintiff during the process of separating the right beer, and applied artificial heart destruction to the above plaintiff. In the process of inserting the 6th left fry space into the cage cage cage cage, and even in the process of separating the left-hand beer, the heart was damaged by damaging the left auric, LA, which accompanied the left-hand breast cage.

Since then, when the above plaintiff's blood pressure and oxygen fall below the standard level in the course of operation, the above medical personnel changed the artificial cardiopulmonary discard applied to the above plaintiff to the EC gun (ECO) and completed the first operation.

On May 10, 2015, the chest Xae and the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed the scarcity and the scarkee surgery (hereinafter referred to as the “second surgery”) against the Plaintiff, and during this process, the said Plaintiff was in charge of the first and second surgery.