1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the reasoning of the court of first instance is written or added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

(The court of first instance’s findings and determination are justifiable in view of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs to this court by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance, and there are no errors as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs). The court of first instance’s “generally deemed to have been a matter of fact” of first instance’s 11 as follows.

[The defendant hospital doctor J in charge of the instant procedure was investigated under suspicion, such as occupational injury, etc., and at the time, K Association Medical Advisor, according to the investigation agency's "SYNEX SCORE and various blood transfusions" (which means the evidence to determine the treatment method by putting them out when there are several blood diseases) the defendant hospital doctor J in charge of the instant procedure, sent a reply to the purport that "the new stack scoin according to the result of the deceased's autopsy 16 points and constitutes a case where the instant procedure is possible and effective." (Evidence 1)" (Evidence 8 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, "the autopsy scoon" was added to "the autopsy 6 points" (Evidence 1).

The following shall be added to Chapter 6 of the first instance judgment.

(E) On February 26, 2020, the Suyang District Prosecutors' Office in the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office (E) made an application to the effect on suspicion of occupational injury, etc. of the above J on February 26, 2020, that the procedure of this case conducted by J was conducted in conformity with the general and ordinary attention of the doctor and the J was not subject to a disposition of non-prosecution (suspect No. 1) on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to recognize the negligence by the J (Evidence No. 1)." (Evidence No. 1-3) No. 9 of the first instance judgment "(No. 1-3)" was "(No. 1-3" and "no. 17".

The following shall be added not only to the 15th page of the judgment of the first instance, but also to the following:

“Medical Records”.