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

A. The Plaintiff is a social welfare foundation that has established and operated a sanatorium for older persons (hereinafter “instant sanatorium”) under the name of “C” in Incheon Spojin-gun B.

B. From August 4, 2014, the Defendant:

8. On February 17, 2015, based on the results of an on-site investigation conducted by the Plaintiff until August 2015, the instant disposition was taken to suspend the business of the instant sanatoriums for 131 days pursuant to Article 37 of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act and Article 29 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the following grounds:

Violation of the criteria for placement of human resources - Violation of the criteria for addition of human resources, additional placement of expenses for benefits without any depreciation, and violation of the criteria for addition of expenses for care benefits - violation of the standards for addition of expenses for care benefits by failing to assign a caregiver, but the violation of the standards for addition of expenses for care, in addition to the expenses for care, the claims for the improvement of the level of claims can not be claimed [based on recognition], without dispute

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, who had no ground for disposition, issued the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff’s qualification certificate was false among those who reported to the Plaintiff as a caregiver of the instant medical care facility. The Plaintiff confirmed the qualification certificate of a caregiver submitted by them at the time of employing the said person as a caregiver, and it was entirely dead of the fact. Since the Plaintiff knew that the qualification certificate was false and claimed for medical care benefits to the Defendant after paying all reasonable benefits, the Plaintiff did not claim for medical care benefits in a false or unlawful manner. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as the ground for disposition does not exist. (ii) The Plaintiff’s deviation from and abuse of discretionary power was refund of the medical care benefits received excessively from the Defendant around February 2015, and the instant disposition taken by the instant medical care facility ought to be moved to a sanatorium.