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

A. A. Social Welfare Foundation B (hereinafter “Welfare Foundation”) is a corporation running C and B Welfare Foundation D (hereinafter “D”), a long-term care institution under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged, and the Plaintiff is the representative director of the Welfare Foundation.

B. As a result of conducting a joint on-site investigation with respect to Pohang-si, C, and D on April 14 through April 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) although the said medical care institution is a long-term care institution with less than 30 current employees, it does not have a duty to assign a physical clinic; (b) C registered as a physical clinic E with working hours of less than 160 hours a month for less than 160 hours a month and wrongfully receives expenses for long-term care benefits of KRW 53,756,970 in total from May to January 2014; and (c) registered as a physical clinic with the working hours of less than 160 hours a month at 160 hours a month at 160 hours a month and registered as a water clinic F with the working hours of less than 160 hours a month at 160 hours a month. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24423, Mar. 3, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 25200, May 2014.

C. On August 6, 2014, the Defendant notified the instant welfare foundation of the restitution order of KRW 39,314,970 of the unfair receipt amount of KRW 53,756,970 and KRW 39,314,970 on the ground that the instant welfare foundation made an unfair claim for expenses for long-term care benefits pursuant to Article 43 of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. On the lawsuit of this case that the plaintiff seeks revocation of the disposition of this case, the defendant asserts that since the counterpart to the disposition of this case is not the plaintiff but the welfare foundation of this case, the plaintiff has no standing to seek revocation of the disposition of this case.

B. First of all, according to whether the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff exists, and the above facts of recognition, the Defendant recovered the cost of long-term care benefits to the instant welfare foundation, which is the operator of C and D.