1. Of the part against Defendant E of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiffs constituting the part ordering payment under paragraph 2.

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this case is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From the fifth side to the fourth, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is " 2, 10, 6, 10, 14, 10, 18, and 8." The part of the judgment of the court of first instance to the court of first instance to the " 6, 8, 2000, 2)", and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance to the " 6, 8, 2000, 13 through 15 is deleted 6, and the part of the 8, 13 through 15 is not necessarily necessary as follows. In light of the above, the result of the medical record appraisal entrusted to the director of the Seoul Medical Center of the court of first instance to the director of the Seoul Medical Center of the court of first instance to the above 10th day after October 30, 2015, and the part of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs including Gap 10th day after the fact that the plaintiffs' 10th day to February 12, 2013.

On the other hand, Defendant E did not explain to G that the abnormal reaction of fluorine fluorial relationship may occur, but it did not explain that fluorine fluorine fluorine fluorine fluor.