1. On October 25, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of suspending the qualification of the doctor’s license for the Plaintiff on October 25, 2016 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained a doctor’s license on February 25, 2009 and was employed as B Council members located in the Geum-gu Busan (hereinafter “instant Council members”) and performed medical practice from January 25, 201 to February 17, 2012.

B. A member of the instant case was established in the name of C and changed in the name of D, an incorporated association (hereinafter “instant incorporated association”), but in fact, was a member of E, who cannot be a founder of a medical institution.

C. On December 20, 2012, Busan District Prosecutors’ Office: (a) was suspected of having committed a violation of the Medical Service Act against the Plaintiff on the grounds that “the Plaintiff was in collusion with E from January 25, 201 to February 17, 2012; (b) the Plaintiff was the first citizen of the society where the Plaintiff was the first offender and graduated from the medical school; and (c) the instant member was established in the name of the medical corporation.”

On October 25, 2016, the Defendant suspended the qualification of the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was employed by a person who is not eligible to establish a medical institution and provided medical services.” However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff was suspended from indictment, Article 66(1)2 of the Medical Service Act and Article 4 of the Regulations on Administrative Measures Concerning Medical Relations [Attachment] of the Administrative Disposition Standards

1. Common standards:

(d) 1 and

2. Individual standards:

A. Based on 36), a disposition suspending qualification for a doctor’s license on a 15-month basis (i.e., January 21, 2017 to March 7, 2017) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 9 (which include numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply)

written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion did not have an intention to engage in medical practice under employment by a person who is not eligible to establish a medical institution.

② Even if the grounds for the instant disposition are recognized, the instant disposition is discretionary.