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

A. The Plaintiff was designated and operated as a long-term care institution for home welfare facilities for the elderly (hereinafter “instant center”) at the Papju City.

B. On December 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff: (b) provided the beneficiary D with the visit care service on April 14, 2016; (c) provided the beneficiary E with a total of KRW 66,950,00 for long-term care benefits; (b) provided the beneficiary of the instant long-term care benefit at the Haju-si, G, where the beneficiary was not reported as a long-term care institution from January 1, 2016 to May 201; and (d) provided the beneficiary of the instant long-term care benefit to KRW 8,02,770 for total expenses incurred in providing the beneficiary of the instant long-term care benefit; (c) provided the beneficiary of the instant long-term care benefit to the beneficiary of the instant case on the ground that the beneficiary of the instant provision was not unfairly recovered on December 10 and December 23, 2015; and (d) provided the beneficiary of the instant long-term care benefit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to recognize all the grounds for the instant disposition. However, considering the circumstances that the Plaintiff inevitably transferred the lessor’s cross-ray of war to operate the instant center only one year after the establishment of the instant center, the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing its discretion.

B. Article 43(1)3 of the former Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged is false to the Defendant who received expenses for long-term care benefits.