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

A. The Plaintiff, as the representative of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “instant workplace”), has maintained the eligibility as the health insurance policyholder.

B. Upon conducting a business trip inspection on the instant workplace around February 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the instant workplace is in operation at the location other than the instant workplace on the registry, and determined that the instant workplace was not operated.

C. Accordingly, on February 5, 2014, the Defendant lost the Plaintiff’s insured status as the Plaintiff’s employee insured retroactively as of July 1, 2010, and ex officio removed the instant workplace from the health insurance applicable workplace.

On February 20, 2014, the Defendant imposed KRW 7,944,340 on the Plaintiff on February 20, 2014, totaling KRW 222,450 and KRW 7,721,890 from February 2011 to January 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). (e) The part imposing the insurance premium of this case shall be subject to the settlement of accounts.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on June 14, 2016. However, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on July 14, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an objection after the lapse of 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the instant disposition and 180 days from the date on which the instant disposition was issued.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant workplace was difficult to operate, and thus, only moved to an office with a low rental fee at the location of the registry, and continued management activities, such as recovery of attempted bonds and repayment of debts until December 2, 2013 when the registration of dissolution was made.

Therefore, the portion of the instant disposition, which was KRW 7,507,40,00, from February 201 to December 2013, among the instant disposition, is unlawful.

3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. It is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s main defenseal Plaintiff was notified of the instant disposition around February 2014 and was aware of the instant disposition around that time.

However, there is a problem.