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

A. The Plaintiff is a medical corporation that a medical care institution under the National Health Insurance Act established and operated an effective convalescent hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”), which is a medical care institution providing medical benefits, in 1063 due to efficiencies.

The standard of differential calculation of hospitalization fees in a long-term care hospital - The differential nursing system based on the level of nursing personnel in a long-term care hospital shall be calculated based on the average number of nursing personnel in the immediately preceding quarter that takes exclusive charge of nursing services for inpatients patients. However, as follows, the details of nursing personnel are different from the details of actual service, and the details of the report on the type of nursing class filed by the nurse A on April 1, 201 to December 8, 201, and the details of the report on the type of nursing class filed by the nurse A on April 1, 201, to December 1, 2011 to December 8, 2012, 201 that there is no fact that the nurse had worked on February 10, 201 to December 10, 2012, to March 17, 2012.

B. As a result, the Minister of Health and Welfare conducted an on-site investigation of a medical care institution (medical care institution) on the period from April 15, 2012 to October 19, 2012 (hereinafter “instant on-site investigation”) with respect to the Plaintiff from October 19, 2012, the Minister discovered matters, such as a claim for violation of the standards for calculating the differential rate of hospitalization fees in a convalescent hospital, a claim for medical care expenses after medical treatment at a place other than a medical care institution, a claim for violation of the standards for calculating hospitalization fees, a claim for violation of the standards for calculating hospitalization fees, and

Among them, the issues in this case are as follows.

C. On June 11, 2014, the Defendant was notified of the result of the instant on-site investigation, and on June 18, 2014, issued a disposition to collect expenses for medical benefits pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Medical Care Assistance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the medical expenses were unfairly paid by claiming medical benefits costs in violation of the Medical Care Assistance Ordinance, etc.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.