2. On September 21, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of January 3, 201 to suspend business operations against the Plaintiff.

A. On June 30, 200, the Plaintiff obtained a license for the transportation of emergency patients from the Defendant, and engaged in the transportation of emergency patients from that time.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was imposed penalty surcharges in lieu of business suspension as shown below while running the business of transporting emergency patients.

The amount of penalty surcharge on the date of the disposition of the number of offenses shall be determined by an emergency medical technician on November 9, 200 without an emergency medical technician for business suspension of the amount of penalty surcharge on the date of the disposition of the number of offenses, and the amount of penalty surcharge on July 20, 200 on July 1, 2001, when the order for suspension of business suspension of 20,000,000 won was not complied with on April 3, 2001, when the order for suspension of business suspension of business suspension of 30,000 won was issued on July 1, 2001, when the emergency medical technician was not issued on July 4, 2004 on July 20, 200, when the emergency medical technician was not issued on July 420, 2000 won on July 420, 200 won on July 29, 2011. < Amended by Act No. 1080, Dec. 14, 14, 20000, 00>

C. On September 21, 2012, the Defendant: (a) violated Article 24 of the former Emergency Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Emergency Medical Service Act”); (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 51 of the former Emergency Medical Service Act by failing to be equipped with facilities, etc. to be equipped by the emergency patient transport service provider; and (c) rendered a disposition of business suspension on January 3 (from January 1, 2013 to February 2, 2013) pursuant to Article 5(2)1 and 3 of the former Emergency Medical Service Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), Eul 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the excessive collection of the transferred medical treatment (A) according to Article 45 [Attachment 18] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Emergency Medical Service Act, a special first-aid vehicle is entitled to receive the transport fee and first-aid treatment fee from an emergency patient during the transport. However, Article 2(2)(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the Emergency Medical Service Act provides that the emergency medical