1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Since 2001, the Plaintiff, as a doctor, opened and operated C’s Council member (the name “D”).

B. On July 14, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to suspension of indictment with respect to the suspected violation of the Medical Service Act that “the Plaintiff was provided with KRW 8 million for the purpose of promoting sales, such as inducing the adoption of drugs and inducing the adoption of drugs by F, etc., around July through August 2011, by the former District Public Prosecutor’s Office,” and that “the Plaintiff was provided with KRW 1,300,000 from F, on the same pretext as the above F,” and was sentenced to suspension of indictment with respect to the suspected violation of the Medical Service Act.

C. As above, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the suspected violation of the Medical Service Act, which was suspended from indictment on September 1, 2016, and issued a disposition suspending qualification for two months on October 27, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Violation - Acquisition of unfair economic benefits, etc. in violation of Article 23-2 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 13658, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same) - The Plaintiff was provided by the Habman on June 2012 with economic benefits equivalent to KRW 1.3 million for the purpose of promoting sales, such as adoption of drugs and inducement of prescription (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition cause”) - Article 66(1)9 of the former Medical Service Act - [Attachment] Article 4 of the former Rules on Administrative Dispositions related to Medical Services [Attachment] / [Attachment] Article 4 of the former Medical Service Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 113, Mar. 19, 2012)

2.(a)

16) [Reasons for Recognition] (f) fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the following grounds as it is unlawful.

The absence of 1 Disposition-based F is not able to accurately memory the time and circumstances when 1.3 million won was paid to the Plaintiff, and in 2012.