1. All claims filed by the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff C’s spouse, Plaintiff D, and E are Plaintiff B’s children, and Defendant B’s mother.

B. On February 15, 2011, Plaintiff B was diagnosed of the Man University Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) operated by the Medical Care Institute of the Defendant Educational Foundation (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), and was under the diagnosis of the Man University’s symptoms and the Man-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-g-

C. On the 22th of the same month, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital discovered the fact that the right-hand side of the Plaintiff B was damaged (hereinafter “the instant injury”), as a result of the examination and luminous observation of the Plaintiff’s clothes CT (computer shooting of computer parts) against the Plaintiff B, and implemented the supplementary sprinking on the right-hand side.

Since then, until January 7, 2012, the Plaintiff received treatment as to the part of the instant injury, such as the removal of the brush and re-injecting the brutation, several times at the Defendant Hospital.

E. On February 20, 2015, the deceased on February 20, 2015 during the instant lawsuit, the deceased taken over the lawsuit by Plaintiff B, Selection G, H, I, and J.

[Based on recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6; the result of the examination of medical records on the chief of the Korean Medical Association; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs alleged that the instant injury was caused by the Defendant F, despite the fact that the Plaintiff F was seriously aware of the Plaintiff F’s arrival of her own gymnosis and the mouth, and did not unfairly change the instant injury into the gymical surgery, and caused the instant injury to the Defendant F, which was caused by the coercion of the instant surgery.

In other words, the doctor, who is performing the laparary laparing surgery such as the instant surgery, has a duty of care to convert the laparary laparation into a laparing surgery if it is deemed that it is serious. In light of the Plaintiff B’s situation, Defendant F was difficult to confirm the location of the lapare in light of the situation of Plaintiff F, but caused the instant injury by performing the instant surgery without changing into a laparing surgery.

In addition, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital is the injury of this case.