Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff A related to the parties is a person who has undergone a basin expansion operation at a G-type medical clinic (hereinafter “Defendant 1 hospital”), H-type medical clinic (hereinafter “Defendant 2 hospital”), and Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and D are children of Plaintiff A.
Defendant E is the president of Defendant 1 Hospital, and Defendant F is the president of Defendant 2 Hospital.
B. On December 21, 2006, Plaintiff A, after the surgery at Defendant I Hospital, had undergone a refluence expansion surgery (hereinafter “the primary surgery”) at Defendant I Hospital with the inner diameter from Defendant E, referring to as “Defendant E,” and the first operation was conducted two days after the first operation, and the first operation was launched seven days thereafter.
In addition, after the operation, the escape of the upper part of the left chest carrying the diameter of the lower part of the breast line was worn up, and the correction broding broke was worn up for two months to correct it.
On October 4, 2007, the plaintiff A complained of the fear that the breast body of his chest continued to be seen, and the defendant E performed a removal of the protetype (hereinafter "the second operation").
Even after that, the plaintiff A complained of the phenomenon of the skin and the chest.
C. On November 5, 2008, at Defendant 2 hospital, Plaintiff A received a fluoral extension surgery from Defendant F (hereinafter “third surgery”) on November 5, 2008.
Plaintiff
After the third operation, A complaining of the embarrasses that both relics are visible, Defendant F removed the refluorial refluorial refluorial material on November 20, 2008, and cut off a total of 1/2 to 2/3 of the chests while performing the refluoral disaster prevention type and the refluoral treatment (hereinafter “fourth surgery”).
Defendant F is suspected of having a salt certificate due to the heat in the basin to the Plaintiff F, and the Defendant F is 'fiveth surgery' to remove a universal substance on April 3, 2009.
AB made it.
Even after that, the plaintiff A complained of symptoms that are caused by the chest and the oil ben of the breast and the oil ben. D.
Plaintiff
A. A.