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.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiffs' assertion of negligence such as delay in surgery and determination by the parties had already been in a state of immediate cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral dystyphism, etc., but the medical personnel of the defendant hospital delayed 4 hours after the deceased's diagnosis of cerebral cerebral dyspism and cerebral dyspism, while the medical personnel of the defendant hospital delayed the cerebral dypism and the cerebral dypism for 4 hours. The death of the deceased was eventually caused by the death of the deceased due to the negligence that did not perform the dypherical dypism at the time of the mathal dypism.

In addition, the medical professionals of the defendant hospital had been at least 20 hours delayed the opening pressure surgery while brain side and cerebrovascular were under way due to the aggravation of the deceased's condition after the drhethal inhalement.

Judgment

On March 3, 2012, at around 19:19, the Deceased’s delay in the injecting-type inhale and the injecting-out inlet, and on March 3, 2012, the emergency room of the Defendant hospital was installed. The medical personnel of the Defendant hospital confirmed the blood flap blood and the cerebr-out transfusion on the right side of the Deceased through brain CT, and conducted the injecting-out and the injecting-out inlet on the same day after the deceased’s consciousness was deteriorated.

However, on the other hand, the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 2, and the result of the request for the examination of the medical records to the head of the Bupyeong-gu University of the first instance, and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the request for the examination of the medical records to the head of the first instance court and the head of the Seoul Hospital of the Seoul Hospital of the first instance. In other words, on March 3, 2012, immediately after the deceased arrived at the emergency room of the defendant hospital.