1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are those who possess a medical license, and Defendant C is the wife of Defendant B.

B. On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant as the vice president of the F Hospital located on the second floor of the Guro-gu Seoul E-building (hereinafter “instant hospital”). Upon receiving a request from the Defendant to lend the name of the establishment of the instant hospital, the Plaintiff reported the establishment of the instant hospital in the name of the Plaintiff from April 16, 2015 to April 30, 2015.

C. On September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff and Defendant B were investigated as a violation of the Medical Service Act (Dual Establishment of Medical Institutions). On the grounds that the Plaintiff did not refuse the Plaintiff’s request to lend the name of medical institution and only lent the name to Defendant B, the Plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition.

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

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Defendants, by deceiving the Plaintiff, had the Plaintiff establish the instant hospital in the name of the Plaintiff, and forced the Plaintiff to lend the name of the instant hospital.

Due to these illegal acts by the Defendants, the Plaintiff was under investigation into the suspected violation of the Medical Service Act (Dual Establishment of Medical Institutions). The Plaintiff sought compensation for damages for the total of KRW 90,337,512,00,00 for the insurance benefits returned to the National Health Insurance Corporation for double establishment of medical institutions, KRW 4,776,630 for the insurance benefits returned to the National Health Insurance Corporation for double establishment of medical institutions, and KRW 560,882 for one day during which the Plaintiff could not operate the hospital due to prosecutorial investigation.

B. We examine the judgment, and even based on all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.