beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff A, who complained of the symptoms of the dominant and right bridge, the sloping left side of the bridge, was diagnosed as the escape card of the memorial signboard No. 3-4 on August 24, 201, which was administered by the Defendant, and was diagnosed as the escape card of the scarcity No. 4-5 on the vertecean, the verteng 4-5 on the verteuk, and the verteuk 5-cheon 1 on the verteuk 1.
B. Plaintiff A received from the doctor C of the Defendant Hospital : (a) he/she was subject to cirropical and tactical surgery No. 4-5 on August 26, 201; (b) 3-4 on January 5, 201; (c) he/she was subject to ciropical and disc secopic surgery No. 3-4 on November 1, 201; and (d) he/she was subject to cirrecopic surgery on December 12, 2011; and (c) was subject to cirrecopic surgery No. 3-4-5 on March 23, 2012 on August 2, 2012; and (d) was subject to ciropical and hydrologic surgery on August 2, 2012.
(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A” is an operation of this case. C.
Plaintiff
A on November 21, 2012, “I” was diagnosed respectively as “Is the Embrate Embrate Empic Madne-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madle-Madon
Plaintiff
B is the husband of the Plaintiff A.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute exists; Gap evidence No. 7; evidence No. 5; evidence No. 5; evidence No. 5; evidence No. 5; evidence No. 5; evidence No. 5; and evidence No. 1; evidence No. 1
2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion
A. (1) The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital asserted by the Plaintiffs had medical negligence in the instant primary surgery, resulting in the occurrence of unexpected symptoms and continued surgery, as it mistakenly selected surgery methods such as maternal meteorological negligence (missently cut, balles and ties, human damage, or surgery methods), and eventually resulting in the aggravation of the Plaintiff’s Maternal and Non-Maternal and Non-Maternal Maternal Malitha.
In addition, before the first operation of this case, the plaintiff A was merely a hurgical symptoms that are not with hurgical pain, and it was each of the instant operations.