1. The Defendant’s disposition revoking the designation of a long-term care institution against the Plaintiff on July 9, 2015 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a long-term care facility that operates the medical care center under the trade name of “C Care Center” (hereinafter “instant medical care center”) in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoan-gu.

B. On July 9, 2015, the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s caregiver at the Medical Care Center around 10:00 on May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff used the Plaintiff’s caregiver, and the Plaintiff was subject to an administrative disposition by assaulting the Plaintiff’s caregiver on April 21, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff was subject to an administrative disposition by assaulting E on April 21, 2015, Article 40(1)4 of the Social Welfare Services Act and Article 37(1)6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged, Article 26-2 and [Attachment Table 4](4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Social Welfare Services Act, Article 29 and [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged.

A. (7) Pursuant to paragraph (a) (A), the head of the instant medical care center was replaced (hereinafter “instant facility replacement disposition”) and the instant medical care center was revoked on July 25, 2015 (hereinafter “instant revocation disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the revocation of the instant revocation disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on September 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence Nos. 4 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant facility replacement disposition and the revocation of designation are legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the replacement of the instant facility and the revocation of the designation of the instant facility are unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Article 29 of the Enforcement Rule of the Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged on the premise that the Plaintiff violated two occasions, and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Rule thereof.

A. 7) The revocation of the designation of this case by applying the criteria corresponding to the second violation of subparagraph (a), but the above [Attachment 2] 1. General Criteria](a) applies to cases where an administrative disposition was taken against the same violation for the last five years.