1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The non-party E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is FF male, and the plaintiff A’s spouse, the plaintiff B, and C are his children.

B. On October 19, 2017, the Deceased visited G Hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) on the ground of frequent survey conducted on October 19, 2017, following the Defendant’s visit to the G Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). As a result, as a result of the examination of clothes CT and the interior of the house, an abstract of the two parts shows a low string opinion, but there is no big difference between 2005 and 205, and thus, it is highly likely that the deceased’s symptoms were caused by trapsy, etc., and received related medical treatment under the diagnosis

(In addition to what is described below, the Deceased is provided at the Defendant Hospital several times with related medical treatment, but this shall be written only on major dates.

On February 20, 2018, the Deceased complained of inconvenience to return and visited the Defendant Hospital, and the Defendant Hospital did not perform the multiple CT inspection in addition to prescribing antibiotics, etc.

On April 20, 2018, the Deceased was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital and undergone a re-examination of the uniforms CT. In an extracter, 3.8 cm of 3.8 cm was found from the clocker, and dypump cancer was found to be four dypump cancer accompanied by a dypology.

E. The Deceased died on November 16, 2018, as an extractr rock.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 9 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs’ family members thought that the deceased’s symptoms are similar to arctite cancer, and the Defendant hospital was visited several times from October 2017 to request the Defendant hospital to re-exploit an extract test. However, the doctor refused the request only when the captain is an issue. As a result, the deceased’s early diagnosis and treatment opportunity was placed on the deceased’s opportunity to die.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are responsible for the Defendant’s nonperformance or tort, and KRW 30 million against the Deceased, and KRW 10 million against the Plaintiff A.