The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the newly asserted in the court of first instance in paragraph (2) to the reasoning of the judgment, thereby citing it as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(Other reasons alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial are examined, the findings of fact and the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion are justifiable). [In addition, the part to be dismissed or added] “148,995,650 won” at the bottom of the third part of the judgment of the first instance as “148,94,650 won”.

The "on-site investigation" of five pages 5 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deemed to be "on-site investigation".

In addition, according to the public notice of this case, the number of employees to add expenses for long-term care benefits means the number of employees working at the relevant long-term care institution among the “reported human resources” to the competent market, etc.

Then, the first instance judgment’s 11th page 3 includes “The instant notice and the instant notice also include the number of employees for the addition of expenses for long-term care benefits only when a “reported human resources” serves as the type of occupation indicated at the time of the report.”

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that while G and E performed the duties of the custodian during the period reported as the custodian, the instant disposition was treated differently on the ground that H did not report it as the custodian, and that the number of reported persons was actually engaged in the duties.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful against the principle of equality and the principle of proportionality.

B. Article 33 of the former Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged and the Gu.