1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an oriental medical doctor operating a GD from the F3th floor in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “Defendant Han-gu”) and the Plaintiff A is a person who was admitted to the Defendant’s Han-gu Council on August 5, 2015 and received from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff B’s wife, Plaintiff C, and D are children of Plaintiff A.

B. On August 5, 2015, Plaintiff A complained of the father’s pain, including around 09:35, and visited Defendant Han-won, and the Defendant diagnosed Plaintiff’s symptoms as pleatum base and tension, and thereafter, Plaintiff A performed cryping operations (hereinafter “the instant treatment”), investment law, and secondary navigation.

C. On the same day, Plaintiff A complained of the symptoms, etc. to “H hospital” through 119 first-aid vehicles. At around 21:54, Plaintiff A transferred to Ulsan National University Hospital to “Slsan National University Hospital,” and was diagnosed as the scarb damage of the father’s 2,3 heads of the scarbs around August 6, 2015, and undergone a blood transfusion removal operation from around 02:20 on August 6, 2015.

Plaintiff

A continues to be under rehabilitation treatment due to symptoms of low-competence, symptoms of scarcity disorder, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including each number), the result of the commission of physical examination to the director of the high-level hospital at the high-level university at this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the grounds of the plaintiffs' claims

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant, in the course of performing the instant treatment to the plaintiff A, was invaded in violation of the duty of care, and as a result, the above plaintiff suffered damage to the number of trees and the scarcity scarcity scarke, the defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiffs for damages caused by the violation of the duty of care in the judgment. 2) The defendant is based on the common sense of ordinary people in the course of a series of medical treatment at the victim's side in the claim for damages due to the violation of the duty of care in the judgment.