1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)

The third-party 7 conduct is as follows.

No evidence exists to deem that the plaintiff has borne KRW 57,172,140 to the National Health Insurance Corporation by deceit or other fraudulent means. From No. 4th to No. 18 of "No evidence exists to deem that he/she has caused the plaintiff to bear the health care benefit."

“2) In principle, the burden of proof in an administrative litigation to which the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act apply mutatis mutandis in an unjust manner is applied mutatis mutandis shall be distributed among the parties in accordance with the general principles of civil procedure. In the case of an appeal litigation, the defendant who asserts the legality of the disposition shall bear the burden of proof as to the legal ground. However, if an administrative agency has obtained a written confirmation from the other party to an investigation in the course of an on-site investigation, barring special circumstances, such as where the written confirmation is forced against the will of the originator, or it is difficult to take the evidentiary materials as to the specific facts due to lack of the content thereof, the value of the written confirmation shall not be readily denied

(2) According to the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff’s motion to be hospitalized with 125 patients who appeal only pains, and do not actually manage or supervise whether the cause of the accident occurred or not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2864, Jul. 11, 2017). As to the suspected fact that the Plaintiff assisted 125 patients, who were hospitalized in Cneology, who were operated by the Plaintiff, to receive KRW 498,667,107, by deceiving the insurance company, on January 31, 2013, and did not actively participate in the patient’s criminal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2864).