1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The relevant Plaintiffs are co-inheritors (children) of the deceased F, a woman living in 1924, and Defendant D is a doctor operating a G convalescent, and Defendant E is a doctor operating a H hospital.

B. On December 14, 2012, at around 04:00, the Deceased at the G convalescent was hospitalized in the hospitalization room of the G convalescent hospital operated by Defendant D and was under medical care, resulting in an injury, such as ulverververging on the left-hand left-hand burging blavers, etc.

After the accident of this case occurred, the Deceased was rapidly transferred to H Hospital.

C. On December 19, 2012, while the Deceased was transferred to a H hospital operated by Defendant E due to the instant abortion, he/she received treatment on the left-hand fluoral surgery, i.e., e., e., fluoral surgery, e., e., fluoral surgery, and e., e., e., e., fluoral surgery at H Hospital.

In addition, on December 29, 2012, the same hospital was administered to remove the satisfy for the satching of the satch in the same hospital.

On January 3, 2013, the deceased was transferred to an emergency room of an scarbly university hospital on the symptoms, such as a sudden paralysis and a difficulty in respiratory, while being hospitalized at a H hospital.

After that, the hospital was hospitalized in the middle-patient hospital and received treatment such as antibioticic administration, etc., and around January 7, 2013, the symptoms were temporarily improved and moved to the general hospital.

However, around January 12, 2013, the state of the death of the person who died on February 3, 2013 due to the decline in blood pressure, etc., and on February 3, 2013, the person who was directly in the written diagnosis of death issued at an scarcity hospital was “the blood certificate,” and the cause of the blood certificate is indicated as “the anti-scarcitys open to the scarcity.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 2, 3-3-1, 2-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against Defendant D

A. Although the Plaintiffs alleged to be the deceased was shouldered with I, it is inevitable that I was not shouldered in depth or locked.