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

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance amends the reasoning of the judgment as stated in the following Paragraph 2, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the trial of the court of first instance, which is the higher trial, shall be reversed as follows, and the part of the appeal Nos. 18, 2, and 3, 20 is reversed.

G. The Plaintiffs’ assertion (unlawful) Defendant G was negligent in delaying the diagnosis and treatment of the deceased’s diversity. Accordingly, the deceased’s diversity aggravated and died at heart suspension. (ii) In order for tort liability to be established due to a mistake in the medical practice in the relevant legal doctrine, it should be proved that there was a breach of a medical duty and a loss, as in ordinary cases, and that there was a causal relationship between the two. Therefore, even in light of the special nature of the medical practice in a case where the patient suffered loss in the course of receiving medical treatment, even if considering the special nature of the medical practice, there was a medical negligence in the course of a series of medical practice, and that there was no other cause between the act and the damage.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the medical practice is an area where highly specialized knowledge is required, and it is extremely difficult for a general person, who is not an expert, to clarify whether a doctor has breached his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists a causal relationship between a breach of duty of care and a loss incurred therefrom. As such, in cases where symptoms causing a result of a surgery occurred to a patient during or after the surgery, the relevant symptoms are proved by proving indirect facts that are difficult to deem that there are other causes than medical negligence.