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. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is to add “the result of the request for appraisal of medical records to the Korean Medical Doctor Association of the court of the first instance” as evidence insufficient to support the plaintiffs’ assertion, and to refer it to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for addition of the following determination, by virtue of Article 420 of the

【Additional Determination】 The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that there was negligence on the part of the Defendants on the transitional measures that did not examine the cause and take active measures with respect to high blood pressure, urology, and symptoms of non-life symptoms after the deceased’s childbirth. However, considering the result of the medical record entrustment to the Medical Records Association of the court of the first instance on the evidence submitted by the court of the first instance, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s blood pressure and urology with respect to high-tension, urology reduction, and urology symptoms that can generally occur after the deceased’s childbirth were administered to the deceased, and that the measures of the Defendant clinic who continuously observed the blood pressure and urology of the deceased were appropriate in light of the condition at the time of the deceased, and that the blood pressure of the deceased was gradually lower on March 12, 2012, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s blood pressure had no more active influence on the deceased’s urine, and that the Plaintiff’s son’s urine had no serious pressure on the deceased.

2. If so, the first instance court dismissing the plaintiffs' claims on the ground that all of them are without merit.