1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the parties is the operator of the E Hospital located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) with the dental doctor.

Plaintiff

A is a patient who was receiving dental therapy from F and G at the Defendant Hospital, and the Plaintiff B and the Plaintiff C are the parents of the Plaintiff.

B. On February 2, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a medical contract and provided medical treatment (1) on the ground that the heat was unsatisfyed and the Plaintiff A wishes to complete a total correction.

Plaintiff

B and C on May 21, 2013, on behalf of the Plaintiff A, entered into a contract with the Defendant for dental therapy (hereinafter “instant contract”).

On May 21, 2013, F performed a precise diagnosis and analysis for correctional treatment (hereinafter referred to as “detailed diagnosis and analysis”), such as taking the Plaintiff’s premises, external photo, and the side bomic radiation photo (Lathy) of the Plaintiff, taking the diagnostic model and taking the diagnostic model.

The defendant hospital established a treatment plan for the plaintiff A, who had the mathical comparison of class II, class II, class II, and class II, based on the first mouth (Ma24, Ma14), and then considered the addition of the second mouth 2 (Ma35, Ma45) through re-examination.

(2) On June 4, 2013, according to the treatment plan with respect to Plaintiff A, the Defendant sent respectively the First Oral Rule (Ma24) to the left-hand side of the Gwanak, and the First Oral Rule (Ma14) to the right-hand side of the Gwanak on June 7, 2013.

(3) On June 11, 2013, F attached a correction device to Plaintiff A and started correctional treatment.

A correction doctor of the defendant hospital was replaced by G around November 12, 2013.

(4) On January 7, 2014, the Defendant released Plaintiff A’s Haak left and left right and right of the second mouth (Ma35, Ma45) (hereinafter “instant rule”).

C. On January 11, 2014, the Plaintiffs (1) moved into the Defendant Hospital to the following: (a) the father, who discovered the Second Oral Rule (Ma35) on the left-hand side of the Haakak-gu on January 11, 2014, was remarkably fluent and paind; and (b) the Defendant Hospital.

The defendant has collapsed and continued problems with the patient on the same day.