Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On February 2010, the Plaintiff is a medical specialist who established and has been operated by the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s status as a member of the Creamble Division (hereinafter “instant hospital”).

B. On February 2018, the Defendant conducted on-site investigations by setting the period for investigating all matters regarding the health insurance of the instant hospital as “six months from June 2016 to August 2016 and from September 2017 to December 2017” and conducted on-site investigations in writing.

C. As a result of the above on-site investigation, the Defendant: (a) determined as follows: (b) “In the case of a partial completion of a medical examination,” the Defendant claimed one time in the direction of before and after two copies (G6502); (c) the number frame (G650-1); (d) water pipes (G640-1); (e) satisf (G750-1); (e) satisf (G740-1); (g750-1); (d) satisf (G710-1); (e) satisf (g710-1); (e) satisf (g7,490-1); and (e) 30-day (g) 40-day total amount of health care benefit subject to investigation on the basis of “business suspension and imposition of penalty surcharges”; and (e) 40-day total amount of 90-day total amount of 360-day business suspension and imposition of penalty surcharges; and (e) 407.6-day.60-day

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to revoke the instant disposition on the ground that it is unlawful for reasons such as violation of the principle of clarity of the relevant provision and deviation and abuse of discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes (attached Form) are as stated in the relevant statutes.

(c).