1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. The plaintiff A is the wife of the deceased F (hereinafter "the deceased"), and the plaintiff B and C are the offspring of the deceased.

B. At around 12:00 on November 16, 2014, the Deceased complained of the G Hospital operated by the Defendant Educational Foundation D (hereinafter “Defendant Educational Foundation”) (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), the Deceased was transferred to the emergency room along with the Plaintiff C, and was examined by the Defendant E by the herb doctor working at the Defendant Hospital.

C. Defendant E diagnosed the deceased’s symptoms as chrophe, tension, fire extinguishing, and stoptotop, and provided stopical treatment to the deceased, such as fladuling, vertebrate, and stophical therapy, and took measures to return the deceased after prescribing herb drugs.

At around 13:00 on the same day after returning home, the deceased complained of pains, such as blood, her blood, her answer, and her respiratory difficulties, and the deceased was sent back to the H Hospital emergency room on the same day at around 13:41 on the same day.

E. At the time of the deceased’s arrival in the H Hospital emergency room, there was a heart stop to the deceased. The medical team at H Hospital immediately after the deceased’s arrival, performed the malination and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and upon the observation of the cardiopulmonary marcing view in the heart, the deceased performed the cardiopulmonary marcing surgery, and confirmed that the blooder of the right upper marcule was completely closed, and attempted to conduct the marcing arbitration.

However, in a serious state, the fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluoral was in a serious state, and the H Hospital Medical fluorial fluorial fluorial fluor

[Based on Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1 through 4, Evidence No. 3-1 through 4, Evidence No. 4, 5, Evidence No. 6-1 through 3, and Evidence No. 9, respectively, the result of the Plaintiff’s personal questioning conducted by the Plaintiff C, the result of the fact inquiry conducted by the court on March 5, 2015, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The defendant hospital is the defendant hospital.