The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff did not perform duties such as overall control and supervision of the quality control of medical equipment for special medical treatment, and evaluation of cinematographic quality solely on the ground that the medical specialist of non-speed image did not work at a medical institution. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff claimed medical care benefit costs or medical care costs using the computerized group recording device, which was registered as an assessment of quality control through the video reading of non-speed image specialists, the lower court cannot be deemed to fall under the “act of receiving medical care costs by fraud or other improper means” under Articles 57(1) and 98(1)1 of the National Health Insurance Act, and Articles 23(1) and 28(1)1 of the Medical Care Assistance Act, each of the instant dispositions were unlawful, and thus revoked each of the instant dispositions.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of the scope of duties of medical specialists in non-exclusive film departments under medical statutes, the standards for medical care benefits under the National Health Insurance Act and the Medical Care Assistance Act, the subject of suspension of duties for collecting unjust enrichment, abuse of discretion, revocation of part of administrative disposition, etc., or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations regarding the overall control and supervision of the quality control of non-exclusive film and video specialists.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.