1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

From November 6, 2008, the Plaintiff operates a medical care and communal living home for the aged (hereinafter “instant medical care institution”) called “C2 points” on the second floor of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B building from November 6, 2008.

From September 2, 2013 to September 5, 2013, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation into the instant medical care institution, and issued a disposition to recover expenses for long-term care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 43(1)3 of the Act on Long-Term Care Benefits (hereinafter “the Act”), in violation of the details on the notification of expenses for long-term care benefits, etc. (Notice No. 2012-162 of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Dec. 18, 2012) and the calculation standards for expenses for long-term care benefits (Notice No. 2012-269, Dec. 24, 2012, Defendant’s notice No. 2012; hereinafter “the calculation standards for expenses for benefits”).

As a result of the disposition of the reduction ratio of the total number of persons actually admitted to the medical care center, 40% reduction by 18 25 730% as a result of the disposition of the reduction ratio of the number of persons actually admitted to the medical care center, and 8,868,530 won reduction by 40%, and 10825% reduction ratio of the number of medical care workers who do not meet the standards for the number of medical care workers, and 10825% reduction ratio of the number of medical care workers, there is no dispute. Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire oral argument of the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the medical care center of this case was amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Act on February 24, 2010, and converted into the medical care center for older persons again on March 1, 2013.

In the wind that such conversion has been retrospectively reported by the defendant, the plaintiff did not transfer the existing inmates to another medical care institution and reported it to 18 persons with a capacity of 18 persons, different from the fact.

The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.