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. The reasons for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. The reasons for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. The reasons for admitting the judgment are as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of addition to or emphasizing the allegations added by the plaintiffs in this court. Therefore, they are

Of the judgment of the first instance court, “Defendant medical corporation D” was changed into “Codefendant Foundation of the first instance trial,” “I” into “Codefendant hospital of the first instance trial,” and “E” into “the deceased.”

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant, such as the Plaintiffs’ assertion ① the transitional observation duty, violation of the duty of electric power resource management, etc., did not directly check the deceased’s operation department and situation on November 28, 2013 when the Defendant directly conducted a sexual surgery against the deceased (hereinafter “instant surgery”) or on November 28, 2013, and did not directly check the deceased’s operation department and condition, and prescribed the deceased’s infection on November 28, 2013 when the infection on the operation department was serious.

As such, the Defendant’s failure to properly confirm the progress of the Deceased caused the infections on the part of the surgery, and caused the death of the Deceased, which led to the aggravation of such infections, and the Deceased’s death. As such, the causal link between the Defendant’s progress observation, the negligence in violation of the power resource obligation, and the death of the Deceased is recognized.

Even if a medicine led to the death of the deceased, this resulted in continuous medication, such as antibiotics and antibiotics, which inevitably led to the aggravation of infections of the deceased, and caused the death of the deceased, and thus, if the Defendant, at an early stage, observed the progress of the deceased and properly administered antibiotics to a superior hospital, the causal relationship is recognized, as it could prevent the death of the deceased.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs.

(2) On the violation of the duty to explain, the defendant.