beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments among the two pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, between the first and the second, between the first and the second, and between the first and the first, the first and the first, and the first1 are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. The addition;
A. From January 9, 2010, the plaintiffs between the second and the first half acts claim that the deceased was sent out after around 15:00 on or after January 9, 2010. However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 8, the nurse at the defendant hospital reported the Plaintiff’s going out on or around 11:00 on or around January 9, 2010, and it is recognized that the nurse in charge of alternate service was in progress at around 15:00 on or around 15:0. In light of this, the plaintiff’s wife at the deceased’s wife applied for going out at around 11:0 on or around 15:00 on or around January 9, 2010, and the statement of evidence No. 10, which is the contents that the deceased was memoryd that he was sent out at around 15:0 on or around 15:0 on or after January 15, 2010, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.
B. In general, where multiple persons are engaged in a large amount of not less than 5 litress once between the 11th and the 2nd one liter, it is recommended to supplement the 8g prior to and after multiple 1 liters (bloods). In the case of multiple 3 liters, it is not necessary to supplement the alutrons without entering the standards of a large quantity of multiple ploss in the case of multiple 3 liters.
C. Of the 11th page 10 and 11, the Plaintiffs were not at the time of copying the medical records by the Plaintiffs, and the body number and the result of the examination are different even if they were prescribed at the same time (i.e., 07:48, 102014523, 10201/12, 2010/12 of the date of reporting, h2.3’s h2.3’s 07:48, 10201/012 of the date of reporting, 10201465, 2010/012, and c. 3.3’s c. of the date of reporting).