1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

As seen below, Plaintiff A is a patient with a scarbry surgery conducted by Defendant E, a professor, at F Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hospital”) operated by Defendant Incorporated Foundation D (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Foundation”), and the Plaintiff B is a child of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C is a mother.

On January 29, 2000, Plaintiff A received a normal medical examination from the Defendant Hospital after undergoing a superior operation and the chronology surgery at the Defendant Hospital. On August 2014, 2014, Plaintiff A was in the emergency room of the Defendant Hospital.

As a result of CT inspection, it appears that the size of the confectional beer and be increased. On November 30, 2014, the above Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital to undergo an operation for the breast-chocking beer and beer and be subject to MereI inspection.

Plaintiff

A From around 7:30 to 14:50 on December 3, 2014, from around 7:30 to around 14:50, it is an operation replacing the upper part of the left chest with a man-blood, while circulating the upper part of the upper part of the parallel with the upper part of the upper part of the parallel with the upper part of the upper part of the parallel with the upper part of the upper part of the parallel with the upper part of the upper part of the body cycle with the upper part of the body cycle, and connected with the upper part of the lower part of the parallel with the upper part of the body cycle; hereinafter referred to as the “instant operation”).

After the operation, Plaintiff A transferred to a middle patient room immediately after the operation. On December 3, 2014, around 15:31, the size and light reflect of the above Plaintiff was normal, but there was a symptoms of the right side convenience.

The above plaintiff's consciousness began gradually around 17:10 on the same day, but the above plaintiff failed to respond properly to the medical instruction of the defendant hospital, and the ability was somewhat weak.

The result of the neological examination conducted around 18:00 on the same day, the plaintiff A still has the direction of the medical staff of the defendant hospital.