1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 22, 2009, the Plaintiff A was sentenced to one year and eight months of imprisonment for fraud at the Ulsan District Court, and was released from prison life on November 17, 2009 through August 30, 201 upon receipt of a decision to suspend the execution of punishment due to urology, chronic re-exploitation, etc. The suspension of the execution of punishment was revoked on February 25, 201 and re-exploited on August 16, 201, and re-exploited on June 14, 2013.

B. On April 5, 2011, Plaintiff A had conducted an inspection on the friendship at the Chungcheongnam-Nam University Hospital. The Plaintiff was diagnosed as “I have no oppy,” and was under his/her real name after being diagnosed as “the opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal opportal

C. On October 14, 201, Plaintiff A was registered as Grade I with visual disability in the Dong-gu Daejeon District Office on October 14, 201.

Plaintiff

B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment thereon

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant has an occupational duty to protect the plaintiff A admitted to Daejeon Prison and to receive appropriate treatment. 2) The plaintiff A refers to the head of the medical department belonging to the defendant, who is not well-known in the friendship around April 201, but it was impossible to receive transfer medical treatment to an external hospital on the ground that there was no custody money, and the defendant was the head of the medical department on the part of the defendant, but the defendant was refused to provide medical treatment, and the defendant neglected the duty to protect the plaintiff A.

3. Therefore, since the defendant's neglect of duty to protect the defendant was the real name of the plaintiff A, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff A for the damages incurred thereby, and the plaintiff B and C shall be liable to pay consolation money.