2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. From December 2012, the network D (hereinafter “the network”) operated a long-term care institution designated under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged (hereinafter “instant medical care institution”) “G (hereinafter “instant medical care institution”)” in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu (Fra 6, 7th) from around December 2012, and died on November 11, 2014.

B. The plaintiff A is the deceased's spouse, and the plaintiff B and C are the deceased's children.

C. On January 2015, Plaintiff A completed the procedure for reporting the closure of the instant medical care institution operated by the Deceased, and Plaintiff A newly designated a long-term care institution under the name of Plaintiff A and filed a report on the establishment of a business operator and welfare facility for the aged, and operated the instant medical care institution under the same trade name.

The Defendant conducted an on-site investigation into the details of long-term care benefits with the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Office from July 6, 2013 to February 9, 2015, and determined that “If the monthly working hours of employees are below 160 hours according to the detailed matters on the criteria for calculation of expenses for long-term care benefits (No. 2013-271 of the Public Health Insurance Corporation Notice No. 201 of the Standards for Calculation of Expenses for Long-Term Care Benefits)” (hereinafter “the instant calculation criteria”), the Defendant shall reduce the amount of expenses to the Corporation; however, the Deceased reported that the physical clinic H was working for less than 160 hours a month from August 8, 2013 to December 2014 and received expenses for long-term care benefits.”

E. The Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that “The Deceased, like the above, unfairly claimed expenses for long-term care benefits in violation of the instant calculation standards and unfairly received KRW 136,412,740,00,000, according to the Plaintiffs’ statutory shares in inheritance (the Plaintiffs A, KRW 58,462,280, Plaintiff B, and C, KRW 38,975,230, respectively).”

F. The defendant recovered the above amount from the plaintiffs.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 13 (including the number of branch offices; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.