1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s suspension of business against the Plaintiff on August 3, 2016 179.

1. The reasons why this part of the disposition is stated by the court are as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2 to No. 3, 16) is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the reasons why the court has stated this part as to this part. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

The term "long-term care institution" in the 5th sentence for the second reason shall be construed as "long-term care institution (long-term care facility for older persons)", and the term "business suspension" in the 9th sentence as "business suspension".

Each "convalescent Hospital" in the 7th, 8, 9, and 3th, 4-5, 6, 8, and 12 shall be applied to all the "convalescent Hospital".

The third 8-party operation "decision on the designation of long-term care institutions" shall be applied to "decision on the designation of long-term care institutions (long-term care facilities for older persons)".

The following shall be added to the next 13th page:

【4) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, and filed an application for suspension of execution with the Suwon District Court (2016A3710). On October 10, 2016, the said court rendered a decision to suspend the validity of the instant disposition until the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. After the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim, this court again rendered a decision to suspend the validity of the instant disposition until the court rendered a judgment on May 19, 2017 upon the Plaintiff’s request (Seoul High Court 2017 A191).

A person shall be appointed.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The former Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged (amended by Act No. 13647, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter “Act”) for the following reasons.

(A) The interpretation of Article 37-4(1)1, (2)1, and (1)3, and (2)3 of the Act harmoniously does not constitute a person to whom the effect of an administrative disposition is succeeded or may continue to proceed with the procedure of an administrative disposition, as prescribed in Article 37-4(1) and (2).