All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiffs are assessed against the plaintiffs and the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, based on its stated reasoning, the court below determined that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital did not have any 10 minutes neglected without taking any measures against D after the arrival of the emergency room, and it is difficult to recognize that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital did not have been negligent in finding the Pib delayed departure from the engine due to the medical personnel of the defendant hospital's taking of the emergency bell of D's artificial absorption and Mabric acid measuring instruments, or neglecting close observation of D, etc., and therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital did not perform medical treatment against D without taking any measures against D such as low temperature, etc., and therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that there was no selective medical negligence in the method of treating the medical personnel of the defendant hospital.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mitigation of burden of proof in damages caused by medical malpractice, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court recognized the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital only the negligence of failing to administer the Nogurine according to the prescription, even though they had the duty of care to administer the Nogurine, which is a system to prevent neutism in accordance with the doctor’s prescription, and limited the Defendant Hospital’s liability to the 30% of the amount of damages for the fair burden of damages on the premise of all the aforementioned determination.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on limitation of liability or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. Ground of appeal.