beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The status of the parties is the legal entity that operates the New Village Synish Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”); the Plaintiff is a person who was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital after surgery for the removal of brain species; Plaintiff B, C, and D are children of Plaintiff A.
B. On June 26, 2015, Plaintiff A (the age of 86 at that time) was hospitalized in Defendant Hospital.
7.2. After undergoing an operation for removal of brain species;
7. The discharge was scheduled on the 13th day.
However,
7. On October 15:10, the Defendant hospital, hospitalized at around 10:10, 102, 1063, 1063, and two-person sick rooms (hereinafter “instant sick rooms”) met with head on the floor by following up to the period between the nursinger E’s unloading of change water.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff A transferred to a serious patient’s room in the absence of consciousness, and the Plaintiff’s treatment of cerebrovasculars that occurred from the instant accident.
7.11. An operation to remove species from a light-to-pula, but the state of which is not improved;
9.24. The F Hospital was transferred to the F Hospital.
C. At present, Plaintiff A’s current state Plaintiff A is receiving medical treatment at a F Hospital, and the physical left part of the body cannot be mixed, and it is a flexible life through a misconduct, and it is difficult to communicate daily.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the entries in Gap 2, 3, and 5 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiff A had a good condition after the cerebral math removal surgery and had a good condition before discharge. At the time of the accident in this case, the toilet was coming from the toilet in the ward room in this case, and the toilet gate was pushed down with the wind, and the head was seriously faced with the toilet floor at the time of the accident in this case, and the defendant was responsible for the possessor's responsibility of the structure and the user's responsibility against the defendant.