1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Presumption

A. The plaintiffs are legal entities that operate the Seoul Jongno-gu University Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) located in Jongno-gu Seoul University (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). The plaintiffs are successors to their wife and children of the networkF (GG students, hereinafter “the network”).

B. The Deceased was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital on the grounds of the pulmonary treatment and death on November 28, 2013.

On November 30, 2013, the Deceased was hospitalized on November 30, 2013, and around 04:35, the Deceased received a divershy from the bed, the right bed, and the Deceased received a divershys operation on December 18, 2013.

Afterwards, the deceased showed a cardiopulmonary eculation and cardiopulmonary eculation, show a shocked opinion, and the medical staff of the defendant hospital performed an cardiopulmonary eculation on December 24, 2013, and confirmed the condition of the deceased, and entered the heart of the chest and the respiratory machine as a patient room on December 28, 2013, and performed the operation on January 9, 2014.

On January 11, 2014, the Deceased was transferred to a house-to-house observation room, and had shown symptoms, such as blood pressure decline, oxygen fall, and oxygen fall, which were moved to a house-to-patient again on January 19, 2014.

As a result of the examination on the deceased’s failure to perform normal ties, the deceased showed a serious negative dystypology and dypology. Accordingly, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed an operation to dypate with the president on January 20, 2014.

After the operation, the deceased died on February 14, 2014, since he/she gets worse with the blood transfusion during the treatment of a serious patient room.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 9 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) The medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital asserted by the Plaintiffs did not explain the risk of abortion and the need to stay in the guardian to the deceased and their protectors.

The nurse of the Defendant Hospital had already been 00:21 on November 30, 2013 due to the influent knite of the deceased on the day before the death, but he had been influent with the telephone room only by the doctor.

Kelvel shall be.