1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a doctor, the Plaintiff is operating the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “B-type Foreign Service Division” (hereinafter “instant member”).

B. On August 26, 2016, the Seoul Western District Prosecutor’s Office received KRW 2.7 million in the name of rebates from C and D, from July 2011 to February 2012, 201, the Plaintiff suspended the prosecution on the suspicion of violating the Medical Service Act.

C. On November 23, 2016, the Defendant issued a two-month disposition of license suspension pursuant to Article 23-2(1) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 13658, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 66(1)9 of the former Medical Service Act and Article 4 [Attachment Table] [Attachment Table] 2(a)(f) of the former Rules on Administrative Dispositions Concerning Medical Services (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 190, Mar. 29, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Considering the following circumstances of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition was an abuse of discretion.

① At the time when the Plaintiff obtained a corporate card from his/her employees, and used it, the pertinent provisions of the former Regulations on Administrative Dispositions Concerning Medical Services, which were newly established, are not applicable, since March 3, 201, which was before the establishment of sanctions related to rebates under the Regulations on Administrative Dispositions Relating to Medical Services.

② After the Medical Service Act was amended by Act No. 11005 on May 27, 2010, and the so-called “dubation system” came into force, the prosecution brought a prosecution against those who have received more economic benefits based on the three million won of the investigation into the same medication and the third medication rebates case, and suspended the prosecution against those who have received less economic benefits.

However, the Plaintiff's fluoral drugs.