1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Basic Facts

The defendant is operating the E Hospital located in the Gu of Ansan-si (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital"), and the F, G, H, I, and J are doctors belonging to the defendant hospital.

Plaintiff

A is the wife of K who died on November 23, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and Plaintiff B and C are the children of the deceased.

On November 13, 2013, 200:07, the deceased’s internal members and the operation deceased complained of the upper part of the body and visited the emergency room of the Defendant hospital, and the doctor F was carrying out X-ray shooting and blood test on the deceased and carried out a sprinkler.

After about one hour, the deceased showed symptoms, and he was released from the F with a prescription.

On November 16, 2013, the Deceased complained of the head of the re-motor vehicle and received medical treatment by visiting the Defendant hospital.

The Deceased was inspected on the Madge CT shooting of the Madgeuk River, and the Deceased was prohibited for two days, and then decided to conduct the above internal inspection on November 18, 2013.

On November 18, 2013, the Deceased was inspected in the area of the water surface at the department inside the Defendant Hospital at the A.M., and as a result, there was an opinion on infection. On November 16, 2013, there was a discovery of an opinion on the proof of tiny in the CT shooting.

A doctor G or I is an operation to eliminate a general fence by inserting the deceased's internal diameter of eroscopic dystropha CT shooting and the eroscopic streakya Pancagrapyy (hereinafter referred to as "ERCP") into a sloping place for the removal of the general fence.

I explained this necessity.

The Deceased consented and hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital.

The Deceased received doctor H’s supervision and ERCP at I’s office.

I removed the deceased's general fence through the ERCP.

On November 19, 2013, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained to the Plaintiff and the Deceased that it is necessary to perform reciting reciting in order to remove the reciting, and the Deceased and the Plaintiff A consented thereto.

J on November 20, 2013, on the deceased, carried out an ductal reciting reargument to the deceased.

After the operation, the Deceased complained of difficulty in urology and urology.

2.3.