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 (i) the Defendant medical corporation D (hereinafter “Defendant corporation”) is a medical corporation operating the hospital E (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”), and the Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) was a person who was in office as a medical specialist outside the hospital of the Defendant.

Shed Plaintiff A received the following operations at the Defendant Hospital, while Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A.

B. (1) On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff A received a medical examination from the Defendant, who was admitted to the Defendant hospital by means of a blue blue fluecing pain. On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff A received from the Defendant a blue blue fluecing removal and a single blue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue

Sheshe explained that the physical examination executed on March 8, 2013 showed a decline in the right-to-hand pelpathal and pelpelpathal movement function, and that the Plaintiff complained of the symptoms that the loss was not well observed after the instant operation.

Accordingly, the Defendant deemed that the instant surgery did not cause any temporary damage to the Plaintiff A, and observed the progress while treating physical damage.

On May 10, 2013, I conducted a pre-inspection of Plaintiff A, and confirmed that the result of the inspection was damaged.

Consolidated Plaintiff A was hospitalized in Defendant Hospital from June 14, 2013 to receive medical treatment.

C. (i) After the discharge of Plaintiff A, the Plaintiff entered the F Hospital and carried out a re-explosive test on October 2, 2013. As a result, the Plaintiff’s opinion was observed as “the NAT Inspection’s normal conditions implemented on the right side,” and “ zero for physical activity level on the right side of the EMG inspection carried out on the right side of the EMG inspection.”

Dor. 2014.