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

2. The plaintiffs' total costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

Basic Facts

The status of the Plaintiff A is a patient who shows symptoms caused damage to the gale after undergoing the gale removal operation at a G hospital operated by the Defendant medical corporation F (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”), and Plaintiff B is his wife, Plaintiff C, and D are his children.

Defendant E is the director of the Plaintiff A and the director of the Defendant Hospital who performed the surgery for the removal of the above species.

내원 경위 원고 A은 2006. 12. 1.경 4~5년 전부터 우측 겨드랑이(액와부, 腋窩部)에 작은 혹이 만져지더니 한 달 전부터는 우측 팔이 저리는 증세를 보인다고 호소하며 피고 병원 일반외과에 내원하였다.

The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital was suspected of committing the neogenic umor as a result of the chronology test, and the Plaintiff A was charged with the neogenic umor, and the Defendant E requested each of the relevant medical departments to conduct the GT test and the GT test on the part of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff

A was subject to a transition test in the rehabilitation department on December 13, 2006, and all of the results of the climatic ionology test of the right upper part, the right upper part, and the climatic neology test of non-party climatic neology test, and the right upper part of the right upper part was confirmed to be normal. As a result of the climatic neology test on the right upper part, it was confirmed that the exercise and the sense function are all normal.

Plaintiff

A was subject to CT inspection on the right shoulder on December 15, 2006. In the film department, approximately 3.4 cm x 1.7 cm x 2.1 cm x bit 1.7 cm x fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor.

On January 2, 2007, Plaintiff A hospitalized in Defendant Hospital, and received a wale removal operation on January 5, 2007 under Defendant E’s house (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

Defendant E’s appearance is different from that of the above CT inspection opinion, because Defendant E has cut off the inner part of the fry with the frying of the fry and exposing the frying part of the frying part and exposed to the frying part of the frying part.