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

A. The Plaintiff, who obtained an optician license from April 9, 2016, operates the eyeglass shop D in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant eyeglass shop”) along with B.

B. On August 18, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend the qualification of opticians for three months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff based on Article 22(1)3, etc. of the Medical Technicians Act, on the ground that “the Plaintiff operated his/her business without registering the establishment of eyeglass shops from April 9, 2016 to February 14, 2016, and violated Article 12(3) of the Medical Technicians Act (hereinafter “Medical Technicians Act”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the duty to faithfully perform his/her duties with good faith (Article 4(1)) and the duty to promptly conduct an act of disposal (Article 22(5)). Notwithstanding that the Plaintiff’s act falling under the instant disposition was around April 2016, the Defendant violated Articles 4(1) and 22(5) of the Administrative Procedures Act by rendering the instant disposition more than one year and three months after the Plaintiff’s application for registration of the establishment of eyeglass shops, thereby delaying the process and delaying the business. 2) The period of operating the instant eyeglass shop without the Plaintiff’s registration is less than five days, which prevents the Plaintiff from incurring losses due to the instant disposition, as alleged earlier, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case was rendered by deviation and abuse of discretionary authority.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The Plaintiff is found to have been aware of the facts of recognition.