업무정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff is a corporation established on October 14, 199, which is operated by the Telecommunication Disaster Prevention Center.
The chemical disaster prevention center is a long-term care institution that provides home care benefits under Article 23 (1) 1 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged as a medical welfare facility for the aged under Article 34 of the Welfare
In addition to the Center for Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged, the Plaintiff operated the e-mail movable property and the e-mail as a long-term care institution that provides facility benefits under Article 23(1)2 of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act.
B. On July 17, 2015, based on Article 37(1)4 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged, the Defendant issued a 50-day disposition for the suspension of business of a long-term care institution (from October 1, 2015 to November 20, 2015) to the Plaintiff, on the basis of the following:
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff was a beneficiary for whom the C, B, and C (hereinafter “A, etc.”) received home care benefits (short-term protection benefits) at the C, the Plaintiff provided B, from September 15, 2014 to February 28, 2012, B, from May 22, 2012 to February 14, 2015, and C, from March 16, 2012 to February 21, 2015.
As above, the Plaintiff provided long-term care benefits to A, etc. in violation of Articles 23 and 31 of the Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged, etc., and thus, it is not possible to claim
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff filed a claim and received expenses for benefits of KRW 38,575,680 from the Defendant. The average monthly unfair amount of KRW 1,071,547, and the unfair rate of KRW 3.34% (=the total amount of unfair claims of KRW 38,575,680 / wages of KRW 1,151,979,30 / 100 x 100). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s suspension of business is 50 days in accordance with the relevant provisions.
C. On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Standing Committee on Administrative Appeals (Seoul-do), which, on October 28, 2015, the Standing Committee on Administrative Appeals (Seoul-do) dismissed the appeal on October 28, 2015.
On the other hand.