1. All claims filed by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the plaintiff.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion is that the K Hospital located in Seoul was scheduled to perform the Hub disc surgery on March 5, 2013, and on February 21, 2013, the K court received from the person in charge of the above K Hospital an order to discontinue the ice and other drugs, such as ice, before the surgery, and notified the Defendants, who were doctors engaged in the treatment, such as normal high blood pressure. The Defendant L did not inform the Defendants on February 27, 2013 that it was prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, while informing the Defendant of the suspension of taking the Mabre recognition, which is a high blood pressure.

2. On 28. The defendant B, a major doctor, informed that the defendant B was not superior to the operation, and the J continued to use the cream recognition.

In addition, on March 4, 2013, J hospitalized at the K Hospital for an operation, and it was impossible for K Hospital to conduct a necessary close inspection prior to the operation, and after conducting a new close inspection, J carried out an operation log again on March 18, 2013 after conducting a close inspection, but on March 18, 2013, on the day of the operation, J died on November 10, 2014 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

Therefore, since the Deceased expressed that he would undergo a lub disc surgery to the Defendants, the Defendants, the medical doctor who treated the Deceased, should notify the Defendants of the suspension of the use of the rab recognition with blood coloning effect for the above operation and inform the Defendants so that any of the prescribed existing medicines can be identified as rab recognition. However, the Defendants were negligent in delaying the operation of the Deceased due to the inconsistency with the medical instruction on the rab recognition clothes, as well as negligent in delaying the operation of the Deceased, due to the negligence in failure to perform the duty to explain what risks of rabing the Deceased due to the use of the rab recognition, and thus, the Defendants were to have delayed the operation of the Deceased due to the negligence in failing to perform the duty to explain what risks of rabnbing the Deceased. Therefore, the Defendants were to the Plaintiffs, the deceased’s heir.