1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Judgment on the ground for appeal by the plaintiff

A. The Plaintiff’s primary claim 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s primary claim is Articles 4(2) and 33(8) of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “instant Medical Service Act”).

(1) The disposition of this case is a serious defect in the absence of the fact that the disposition of this case was in itself, and this is far more necessary to remedy the rights and interests of the other party to the disposition and to correct the illegal result, and even if the defect is not clear, the disposition of this case shall be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course (hereinafter “section 1”).

A) Even if a violation of Article 57(1) of the Medical Service Act is recognized, the instant disposition on the ground of the instant violation of Article 57(1) is null and void (hereinafter “Chapter 2”). As such, the instant disposition on the ground of the instant violation of Article 57(1) of the National Health Insurance Act is deemed null and void.

(2) In a case where an administrative disposition is taken against a person who has no legal relation or factual relations subject to an administrative disposition, the defect is grave and obvious. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances that make it possible to mislead him/her as to certain legal relations or factual relations subject to an administrative disposition, which are not subject to an administrative disposition, and whether it is subject to an administrative disposition or not, and where it can be clarified only after an accurate investigation into such factual relations, it cannot be said that it is apparent that it is obvious that it would be subject to an investigation conducted by the Seoul Local Police Agency on July 19, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da46722, May 9, 1997; 2002Da68485, Oct. 15, 2004). 2002Da68485, Oct. 15, 2004, comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence No. 3, No. 2017, Jul. 19, 2017.