1. The Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff A on July 14, 2015 “Recovery of the medical care benefit cost of KRW 154,319,380,” and Plaintiff B.

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff B established a building in Seo-gu Busan and D Pharmacy (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”) under the name of Plaintiff B.

B. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiffs were subject to the prosecution of the Busan District Prosecutor’s Office’s Office to suspend indictment for the following alleged violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

On June 10, 2015, the head of Busan Police Station notified the defendant of the investigation results.

1) Suspect A is a pharmacist, and is a person who operates a pharmacy under the trade name of “F pharmacy” in Busan Jin-gu E. However, only one pharmacist can establish a pharmacy. Nevertheless, the suspect obtained a pharmacist’s license holding a pharmacist’s license on January 5, 2015 and established “D pharmacy” in accordance with Article 101 of the Busan Western-gu Building C, Busan. Accordingly, the suspect established two pharmacies. 2) Suspect B is a pharmacist.

No pharmacist shall lend his/her pharmacist's license to another person.

Nevertheless, on January 5, 2015, the suspect registered the establishment of a DNA pharmacy in the name of the suspect, and established a pharmacy in the name of the Ddong-gu Office of Busan, Seo-gu, 101.

The suspect did not operate the pharmacy established in his own name, and lent the pharmacist's license to enable the suspect A to operate the pharmacy.

C. Accordingly, on July 14, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “the medical care benefit cost of KRW 154,319,380” was recovered from the Plaintiff and that “the medical care benefit cost of KRW 197,795,780” was recovered from the Plaintiff B.

(hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case"). / [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 9 (including provisional numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs, who did not have any reason to dispose of, operated the F Pharmacy (the pharmacy established by the plaintiff A), was to liquidate their trade relationship. The plaintiff B had invested in the plaintiff A on 205.