1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff is an intention to operate “C Council member” (hereinafter “instant Council member”) in Overcheon-si B.

B. On May 9, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending qualification for two months against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff received an economic benefit equivalent to KRW 3,059,200 from D for the purpose of promoting the sale of medicines” (amended by Act No. 10325, May 27, 2010); Article 66(1)1 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 10325, May 27, 2010); Article 4 [Attachment Table] of the former Rules on Administrative Measures Concerning Medical Services (amended by Ordinance No. 190, Mar. 29, 2013);

(hereinafter “previous Disposition”). (c)

On February 21, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of qualification for 4 months pursuant to Article 6 (1) 9 of the former Medical Service Act, Article 66 (1) 9 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 14220, May 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Medical Service Act”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was provided by the Plaintiff from November 201, 201 to December 2015 for the purpose of sales promotion, such as inducement for adoption of drugs and inducement for adoption of drugs, etc., by the Plaintiff” (Article 66 (1) 9 of the former Medical Service Act, Article 4 of the former Rules on Administrative Dispositions related to Medical Services (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 283, Jan. 5, 2015; hereinafter “former Rules on Administrative Dispositions related to Medical Service”).

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case” (hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). (No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and whether the disposition of this case is legitimate as unconstitutional based on the plaintiff’s main point of argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case) The Disposition of this case is unconstitutional as a whole based on Article 4 [Attachment 1.C] and 2. Individual Criteria of Administrative Disposition Rule of

A. 16) [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] Criteria for Administrative Disposition in the case of receiving unfair economic benefits, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition criteria”).

In this case.