1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a legal entity that establishes and operates the F Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), and the Plaintiff (GG) was a person who received the fright removal operation at the Defendant Hospital on December 20, 2016, and Plaintiff B is the husband of the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff C and D are their children.

B. On October 2016, Plaintiff A heard the opinion that “the myxa is suspected of occupancy in the heart” through an in-depth test at another hospital. On November 14, 2016, Plaintiff A entered the Defendant Hospital, which recommended that the medical team at the Defendant Hospital should conduct an accurate inspection first.

C. On December 7, 2016, Plaintiff A was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital and undergone a close inspection. As a result, Plaintiff A confirmed that the species suspected of having been regional species of size 4.1cm x 3.0cm cm above the part of the instant Plaintiff’s heart attached to the front heart of the heart (hereinafter “instant species”) were confirmed, and the said Plaintiff was to undergo an operation to remove the instant species.

Plaintiff

A was hospitalized again at Defendant Hospital on December 19, 2016, and received an operation to remove the instant species from 16:31 to 19:11, December 201, 2016 (hereinafter “instant operation”).

At the time, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed the instant surgery in the state of heart suspension using artificial destruction, and removed all the species of this case that are widely attached on the front walls and hearts of the heart room, and in the process, drownd part of the land in the heart room connected to the species of this case.

E. After the removal of the species of this case, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital judged that the area outside the depth of the heart was scarbly observed in the inside and outside of the heart of the heart, and determined that the structural wall of the scarb was scarbed, and that the scarbling of the scarba in the scarba using the scarba in the scarba using the scarba and implemented the scarba method of the scarba.

The medical staff of the Defendant Hospital did not confirm any particular problem as a result of the Plaintiff’s examination of the heart using the sacrific safym.