업무정지처분 등 취소
1. The part of the claim for cancellation of the warning disposition (the primary violation) in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.
The details and details of the disposition are establishing and operating “B”, which is a long-term care institution under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged (hereinafter “instant medical care center”) from June 1, 2012.
From June 8, 2015 to April 11, 2015, the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the details of long-term care benefits from around June 2012 to around April 2015 with the support of the National Health Insurance Corporation. As a result, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff received additional expenses for long-term care benefits from around 3, 2013 to around 10, 200, and 199, for the pertinent period (from around March 2013 to around September 2013, around September 2013, around September 2013, around October 2014, around October 2014, around January 2015 to around February 2015, the Plaintiff received additional expenses for long-term care benefits from around 2013 to around 203, 2015, and received additional expenses for providing care benefits from around 2019 to the National Health Insurance Corporation without any guidelines for placement of human resources.
On September 10, 2015, the Defendant rendered the Plaintiff a disposition of suspension of business 63 days and warning (the first disposition) pursuant to Article 37 of the former Long-Term Care Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 13647, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same) and Article 43 of the Welfare of Older Persons Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission on September 15, 2015 regarding the instant disposition, but was dismissed on March 30, 2016. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on March 15, 2016, which was prior to the dismissal ruling.
[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff is only liable for the suspension of business during the disposition of this case, according to the following facts: Gap's 1, 2, 5, 6 evidence, Eul's 1 and 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole argument as to the validity of the claim as to the warning disposition of this case (the first violation).