1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs came from the time two months after they were born with the name of “officialis” (hereinafter “the instant pet dog”). The Plaintiffs came from March 29, 2014 to March 201.

The Defendant is a veterinarian who operates a “C veterinary hospital” (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant veterinary hospital”).

B. The Plaintiffs, at the time of June 23, 2014, were sent back to 18 times from October 31, 2014, when they were sent to the instant pet dog for about three months after they were born.

At the time of each of the plaintiff's internal organs, the defendant treated the pet of this case.

C. On November 1, 2014, the Plaintiffs, who died of the instant pet dog, were provided medical treatment for the instant pet dog to the D Medical Center.

On November 11, 2014, the instant dog died of an operation with respect to “recovering a recoverment” at the foregoing veterinary hospital.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant is a veterinarian has a duty to observe the symptoms of pet dogs suffering from a disease, to conduct a necessary inspection, and to provide necessary treatment for the name of the diagnosis, and to give appropriate treatment for other diseases, considering the possibility that the diagnosis would be erroneous unless the disease remains.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such duty of care and did not discover the end of the “refashion of a pet,” which is an infectious disease that is not a rare disease, but a disease that may be suspected by promoting only the surrounding area, and caused the pet to have all unfash-free treatment for a long time by misunderstanding that the pet was an “confashion of a pet,” which is entirely no superior to this, and eventually caused the instant pet-out to suffer appropriate treatment. Accordingly, the Defendant’s negligence caused the instant pet-out death.