1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

The relationship G of the parties died while receiving an antichemical therapy at the G University Hospital operated by the Defendant School Foundation B (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Hospital”). The Plaintiff was the wife of the Deceased and the rest of the Plaintiffs are the children of the Deceased.

Defendant E and Defendant F as the doctor of the Defendant Hospital, were the doctor and father at the time of the death of the Deceased.

On June 8, 2012, the Deceased's death diagnosis and surgery process, and the Deceased complained of the severe decrease in body and the pain of the body of the deceased, and they were inside and outside the fire extinguisher in the Defendant hospital.

According to the written request for medical treatment submitted by the deceased to the defendant hospital at the time, the deceased was in the condition of observing the malutical life above the internal and the superscopic scoptym.

Accordingly, on the same day, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital (hereinafter “medical personnel”) carried out a computer screen of the body of the deceased on the same day, and there was a opinion of Madam with the color of the body of the deceased, and was suspected of spreading the body of the deceased.

In addition, as a result of the in-depth landscape test, there was a dynamic cancer view that the transformation and compromise attachment of the relics was observed, and the malology cancer was also observed in the result of the scarmatic organization test.

On June 13, 2012 and June 14, 2012, medical professionals explained on the condition of the deceased and the necessity of an operation on the basis of the results of the examination under paragraph (1) when the deceased was inside and outside the fire extinguisher at the Defendant hospital.

Since then, on June 15, 2012, the Deceased was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital for the surgery, and on June 29, 2012, the Deceased continued to be discharged on July 14, 2012 after receiving the crypology surgery.

After the surgery, the Deceased was treated six times from July 16, 2012 to November 15, 2012 through the outside hospital of the Defendant hospital, outpatients, and hospitalization. On December 2, 2012, the treatment was conducted six times, and was hospitalized as a bad quality and multiple long-term view due to the progress and aggravation of remaining cancer.