2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, as a dentist, establishes and operates a medical institution under the trade name of “BB clinic”.

(2) As to the dental license of this case, Article 64(1)2, Article 67(1)68 of the Medical Service Act, Article 43 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 64(1)2, Article 67(1)68 of the same Act, Article 43 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 64(1)2 of the same Act, Article 64(1)2 of the same Act, Article 68 of the same Act, Article 43 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 44(1)2 of the same Act, Article 25(2)2 of the same Act, and Article 27(1)2 of the same Act, are applicable to the dental license of this case.

) [Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 7 (including each number), the overall purport of the instant disposition, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as to whether the disposition of the instant case is legitimate or not, the Medical Technicians Act, etc., without the grounds for disposition by the plaintiff (hereinafter “Medical Technicians Act”).

Article 3, and Article 2 (1) 6 and 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are included in the scope of duties of dental technicians who can perform under the direction of dentists.

Even if it is not included in the scope of duties of a dental sanitarian, the illegality of the plaintiff's erroneous interpretation of the above statutes is excluded by Article 16 of the Criminal Act due to mistake with legitimate grounds.

There was no medical malpractice on the part of the Plaintiff who abused discretion, and the Plaintiff supervised the act of removing boomed by dental sanitarians at the site.