1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

The parties concerned are corporations operating the Han River University Dental Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Hospital”), and the plaintiffs A received sprinkling from the defendant hospital on July 19, 2010, and the plaintiffs B are children of the plaintiff's wife, C, D, and E.

Plaintiff

A’s past history Plaintiff A started medical treatment by undergoing the cardiopulmonary eption diagnosis in around 1997, and around 2005, Plaintiff A received slots and down-to-under-takes for the treatment of cryposis in the general department outside of the Defendant hospital.

In addition, the above plaintiff started to receive treatment from the circular department of the defendant hospital in the same year as a scam, and continued to receive treatment from the circular department of the defendant hospital on May 2006, such as the implementation of arbitration-based camcamcamcamcamcamcamcaming around the same year, taking advantage of the scaminine and clopigggrel, anti-bloodcamcamcamcaming agents, and taking advantage of the scamcamcamcamic scambams, which are anti-bloodcamcamcaming agents, from around 206.

On the other hand, from July 14, 2006, the above Plaintiff received outpatient treatment from the Defendant hospital’s urology with urology in urology.

Plaintiff

From July 8, 2010 to July 13, 2010, the Plaintiff A’s hospitalization process and the progress of the hospitalization process conducted by another hospital aggravated symptoms, such as urcology, urcology, urcology, and urcology, during the suspension of urcology, following the Plaintiff A’s hospitalization process and urcology conducted by another hospital. The Plaintiff was recommended to perform urcology from urcology and medical professionals of the Defendant hospital.

On July 14, 2010, the urology and medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital conducted blood coaculation tests with the Plaintiff on July 14, 2010. INR value was measured 0.97. On July 15, 2010, the medical personnel requested a coacination with the Defendant hospital’s circulation unit in relation to the risks of the said Plaintiff’s surgery. Accordingly, the Defendant hospital’s circulation unit and medical personnel can perform an operation after the discontinuance of the operation seven days before the operation, and the excessive flacul is immediately suspended, and the low flaculcul is made at the low molecule level.