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 that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the reasoning of the judgment is written or added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Each "this court" of the first instance court of the fourth, 14, 15, and 6 pages 15 shall be added to "the first instance court" respectively.

Part 8 of the 8th judgment of the first instance shall be added as follows.

In relation to this, the appraisal presented an opinion to the effect that "if it is implemented over the course of the depth of the core part of the heart function of the patient concerned, the danger of wave may be reduced if it is implemented over the broad scope of the reinforcement straw, but as such, the damage of the core system due to the reinforcement stude and the decline in its function, and the possibility of the occurrence of a merger, such as the decrease in the core function after the operation, is also increased. It is difficult to recommend the reinforcement stude above the level of the core that it is deemed essential (the result of the request for the supplementation of the medical record for the head of the hospital at the trial)."

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of medical malpractice and its determination 1) asserted that the Plaintiff did not run one hour and 30 minutes after undergoing the instant surgery at the Defendant Hospital. As such, the Defendant Hospital’s medical professionals did not properly meet the requirements at the time of the said surgery. In addition, the Defendant Hospital’s medical professionals were negligent in failing to observe the progress of the Plaintiff’s blood pressure change and whether he/she was infected (see, e.g., the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief as of May 28, 2019 and its preparatory brief as of August 16, 2019). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge the negligence of the Defendant Hospital’s medical professionals, as alleged in the foregoing.

Rather, Eul 6, 7 evidence and the first instance court's statement.