1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who died after being inserted into the cerebral d Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). The Plaintiff, A, and C are the parents of the deceased, and the Plaintiff C are the students of the deceased.

B. The grounds of the case are as follows: (a) A deceased born from G was diagnosed with brain dystrophism and brain dystrophism due to brain dystrophism; and (b) A deceased was diagnosed with brain dystrophism around November 1994; and (c) on around 195, Defendant E, a professor of the Defendant hospital, recommended the deceased to perform dystrophism; and (b) the deceased, upon receiving the first dystrophism and dystrophism from the Defendant hospital on May 198, 2008, received the second dystrophism around November 1998.

3) On August 2010, in order to verify the changes in the form of brain cryposis after the second cryp surgery, around August 19, 201, the deceased performed a brain crypology test. As a result, it was confirmed that the deceased still remains brain crypology test. Defendant E recommended the deceased to conduct the third cryp surgery. 4) On October 3, 2012, the deceased was at the emergency room of the Defendant Hospital, and the deceased started to conduct the third crypology test from the fourth to the sixth of the same month, and observed changes in the brain cypology size and brain crypology size of the deceased, but the deceased’s cypology increase in the size of the deceased’s crypology surgery in accordance with the deceased’s awareness level and tendency of brain cypology surgery.

On October 6, 2012, H professor and I major of the Defendant Hospital, on which he was on duty, performed the instant operation on or around October 15:19, and on the same day, the Deceased was on or around 17:24.