1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the entry in this case by the court of first instance are as follows, and the Plaintiff’s assertion added in the trial are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the additional determination in paragraph (2) below, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Minister of Health and Welfare conducted a field investigation on the instant medical center from December 8, 2016 to October 10 of the same month (the period subject to the investigation: from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2016; hereinafter “instant field investigation”) of the first instance judgment. “Health Insurance Review Board conducted a field investigation on the instant medical center and the hospital for the elderly (hereinafter “the first spot investigation”) between September 8, 2016 and September 9 of the same month.” The Minister of Health and Welfare conducted a field investigation on the instant medical center (the period subject to the investigation: from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2016; hereinafter “the second spot investigation”) from September 8, 2016 to December 10 of the same month.

Each of the 5th 7th 7th , 6th 3th , 7th 5th , 9th 18th , and 15th 10th , [attached Table 1] shall be close to [attached Table 1].]

5 pages 12 "No. 7" shall be raised with "No. 7, 22".

The "Enforcement Rule of this case" of the 7th 5th Myeon shall be referred to as the "Rules of this case".

The 14th to 14th parallels are as follows:

4) Article 57(1) of the National Health Insurance Act provides that "the Corporation shall collect all or part of the amount equivalent to the insurance benefits or expenses for the insurance benefits from a person who received the insurance benefits or a medical care institution that received the insurance benefits costs by deceit or other fraudulent means." Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant has discretion in collecting the insurance benefits costs.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Du40010 Decided July 12, 2018). Accordingly, the Defendant is in violation of the law.