2...

A. On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff, together with B, filed a report on suspension of business with the head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Tax Office having engaged in real estate rental business at the location of the place of business, and filed a report on suspension of business to the head of Jung-gu District Tax Office as “from August 17, 2016 to February 16, 2017.” B. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the eligibility of a spouse as an employment provided policyholder. (c) On March 1, 2017, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff lost the eligibility as a dependent and acquired the eligibility as an employment provided policyholder (hereinafter “the instant confirmation act”), and notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of business on March 6, 2017 to the Plaintiff on March 21, 2017, the Defendant suspended its business from business to KRW 30,300,300,300,0000,000 (hereinafter “the instant period of suspension of business”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case and the instant disposition are unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The first argument is that the Plaintiff reported the acquisition of a dependent qualification on April 3, 2017, which was before March 1, 2017, 90 days from March 1, 2017 to April 3, 2017, and thus, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the eligibility of a dependent retroactively to March 1, 2017, pursuant to Article 2(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the National Health Insurance Act. However, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the eligibility of a dependent on March 30, 2017, which was the commencement date of suspension of business. (2) The Plaintiff, as the second argument, has no particular income since it acquired the eligibility of a dependent as an employment provided policyholder on August 31, 20