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

A. The Plaintiff is a dentist who is operating the Cental Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”) on the Seo-gu and 3th floor of Busan.

B. In the instant hospital on February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff and D were subject to the suspension of indictment for the suspected violation of the Medical Service Act by the prosecutor of the Busan District Prosecutor’s Office on November 30, 2015, on the grounds that D, a dental doctor, was charged with emulcating (hereinafter “instant medical practice”).

C. In relation to the instant medical practice, the Defendant: (a) on January 20, 2016, on the part of the Plaintiff, Articles 27(1) and 64(1)2 of the former Medical Service Act (Amended by Act No. 14438, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter “former Medical Service Act”); (b) Article 4 [Attachment] of the Rules on Administrative Dispositions Related to Medical Services

1. D.

1 and

2.(b)

3) A prior notice of a disposition of suspension of business under paragraph (1) 15th (three months of suspension of business, one-half (one-two months of suspension of business) was given, and the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion to the effect that on February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff changed the disposition of suspension of business to a disposition of imposition of penalty surcharge and changed the disposition of imposition of penalty surcharge. Accordingly, on March 16, 2016, the Defendant submitted a written opinion to the effect that the penalty surcharge of KRW 18,00,000 in lieu of the disposition of suspension of business to the Plaintiff on March 16, 2016 = KRW 40,000 per day corresponding to the sales amount of the instant hospital in 80

2. 10th class) 】 Period of practice suspension (15th day of January) 】 The disposition of this case was imposed (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(D) On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against it, but the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on April 5, 2016. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1-10 (each entry including a serial number, and the purport of the whole pleadings).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The person who performed the instant medical practice is not D, and there is no ground for the instant disposition.

(2) The former Medical Service Act concerning unlicensed medical practice.