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 court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “On the other hand, the father A of the deceased died on October 6, 2015, while the lawsuit of the court of first instance was pending, and his spouse P, children Q and C took over the lawsuit on August 25, 2016,” along with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the assertion that the plaintiffs violated the duty of explanation in the trial of the court of first instance, it shall be cited pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The additionally determined Plaintiffs asserted that “The medical personnel of the Military Medical Center did not explain the necessity of the prosecutor’s brainT (computerization to the Deceased and did not undergo the inspection, thereby resulting in the Deceased’s death, and thus, there is liability for damages caused by breach of the duty to explain.”

However, the testimony by N of the witness of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the testimony by N of the witness of the first instance trial, M of the physician on duty at an emergency medical center of the military medical center who treated the deceased at the time, who was a doctor at the first instance trial, was relatively clear of the deceased's consciousness at the time, and did not have any pain on his head, but did not appeal for pain, but recommended the deceased to undergo an inspection of brainT (electronic shotgraphic shotgraphic shotic shotgraphic shotic shotic shotic shotic shot). The deceased refused it and observed the progress by him, and only can it be known that the deceased took measures of hospitalization for the purpose of conducting the inspection by admitting

In addition, the duty to explain is not subject to all the medical process, but subject to the case where the patient requires choice by self-determination, such as the process of surgery and other surgery, and the case where the patient conducts medical practice which is highly likely to cause bad results, and the Supreme Court Decision 2007Da25971 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.