beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The following facts are found to be of no dispute between the parties, or to be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence of Nos. 1 through 11, 13 through 15, and 17 (including paper evidence):
A. From about five years ago, he/she was in the process of taking over over the he/sheed to the emergency room of an I hospital (hereinafter “the instant hospital”) on March 1, 2015, when he/she was in the process of taking over the he/she had been in the heart due to defluence (hereinafter “the deceased”). As a result of the brain and the inner part CT test, he/she did not seem to have an opinion on acute he/she was in the process of returning kneeing and pressure due to defluence and damage to the blood.
B. On March 2, 2015, the Deceased received a diagnosis from Defendant H, a medical doctor, of this part, from the GJ, who was within the instant hospital, and was under the surgery of franchising franchis. At the time, at the time, the Deceased’s franchise surgery was conducted by Defendant H, a medical doctor, and was in a state of considerable father and franchise, the franchise, the skin color was observed, and the franchise was in a state of franchise at the time. The Deceased suspended the use of franchise under the direction of the suspension of the use of franchiseing from
C. On March 6, 2015, the deceased was hospitalized at the instant hospital due to knee, etc.’s blood and side knee, and on March 6, 2015, the deceased was hospitalized at the instant hospital. Defendant H said that the deceased might have cerebral blood if he/she continues to use kne, and that he/she could continue to use kne on the right kne, and thus, he/she would stop using kne per minute.
On March 11, 2015, at around 20:31, when being hospitalized, the Deceased taken brain CT to the effect that the consciousness of the deceased is unclear and the horses are divided into two parts. However, there was no special blood-related check. The doctor on duty explained to the Plaintiff F that the possibility of the compromise and closure of the cerebrovascular, the possibility of the use of the blood-related ties, and the use of the blood-related exclusive license, and the cancellation of the use of the blood-related exclusive license.
(e)K.