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.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant D operates I, a sanatorium for the elderly (hereinafter “instant facility”) at the Chungcheongnamyang-gun H, Chungcheongnamyang-gun, and Defendant E served as the president of the instant facility from April 1, 2016 to the date.

Plaintiff

A was located in the instant facility from April 28, 2011 to August 21, 2017, and Plaintiff F and G are children of Plaintiff F and Plaintiff G.

B. At the time of entrance into the Republic of Korea on April 28, 2011, Plaintiff A, who was not on the right-hand side due to brain stroke that occurred on July 2008, had a complete paralysis, serious recognition disorder, and stroke, etc., and was unable to communicate with the body in its entirety without any operation in its upper state, and became aware of it at all.

C. On March 14, 2013, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as snowbrow joints, the right-side inner part, and the upper part of the body of the Plaintiff at the instant facility, with the inner part on the ground, while going beyond the bath and faced with the inner part on the ground.

(hereinafter “the instant accident”). D.

In June 28, 2012, X-ray shooting was conducted on June 28, 2012, there was no higher opinion on the part of Plaintiff A’s ray. However, on September 2, 2014, the film and image test result of the test on September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff’s right ray booms are recorded, and on February 22, 2015, the image and image test result of the test on February 21, 2015, the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part is recorded.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 9-2 and 10-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. First, the Plaintiffs neglected the Defendants’ duty to protect the Plaintiff A, thereby causing the Plaintiff’s brupt from her retirement due to the instant abortion on March 14, 2013, and even if the Plaintiff’s brupt of the brush did not occur on March 14, 2013, it is evident that the Plaintiff’s brupt of the Plaintiff’s brush was incurred after being admitted to the instant facility, and the Defendants are either at an unexpected risk or injury for the Plaintiff, a serious patient.