1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) adding to the judgment following the third page 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) the second page 18 “K”; (c) the fourth page 5 “M” to “A”; and (d) the third page 5 “H” to “C”; and (e) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, (c) the same shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Additional statement: The Defendants asserted to the effect that the deceased had a low-tension and urology disease as an old age at the time of the instant surgery, and that this low-income disease affected blood transfusion and urine delay after the instant surgery, and thus, the Defendants’ liability should be limited. Thus, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the low-income disease, such as the deceased’s high-tension and urology, had influenced blood transfusion and urology after the instant surgery, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance that partially accepted the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants is justifiable, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. However, since it is obvious that "H" in the disposition of the court of first instance is a clerical error in the "C" under Article 211(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is decided to rectify it ex officio to "C" under Article 211(1) of the Civil Procedure