1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 16, 2009, the Plaintiff is a doctor who opened and operates a “Bsung Foreign Legal Consultant” located in Nam-gu, Ulsan-si (hereinafter “instant member”).

B. From April 2009, the Plaintiff traded drugs with the name-related drug company (hereinafter “prestigious drug”), and paid KRW 9,472,566, and KRW 38,025,781 as the purchase price for the prestigious drug around 2009.

C. From January 4, 2011 to March 18, 2011, the instant member supplied prescription drugs, etc. over 10 times. The instant member prepared a tax invoice to the effect that the instant drug was supplied with KRW 12,315,300 to the National Health Insurance Corporation, and paid KRW 12,315,30 to the instant member of the National Health Insurance Corporation the instant drug at KRW 31% discount of KRW 3,879,140, out of KRW 12,315,30, and paid KRW 8,436,160 to the instant drug.

On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the public prosecutor of the Incheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office and was sentenced to the suspension of indictment on the violation of the Medical Service Act, stating that “the Plaintiff was urged to use the drug from January 4, 201 to March 18, 201, to receive a certain percentage of the purchase price, and subsequently, received 3,879,140 won in total at 10 times on credit and acquired economic benefits equivalent to the above amount,” as a result of the violation of the Medical Service Act, to the effect that “the Plaintiff was ordered to use the drug from January 4, 201 to March 18, 201.”

On September 27, 2013, D received a summary order of KRW 10 million due to a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, such as the provision of economic benefits to the Plaintiff for the purpose of sales promotion, such as inducing the adoption and adoption of medicines manufactured and sold in the prestigious drug, etc.

(Seoul Central District Court 2013 High Court 23516). e.

On February 27, 2014, the Defendant, as stated in the above sub-paragraph (c), provided that the Plaintiff received money at a discount from a prestigious drug and received money from the Plaintiff unfairly.