1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the additional decision under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, the reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows.

Under 3, the Plaintiff’s assertion “2. The Plaintiff’s assertion” as “2. The Plaintiffs’ assertion.”

4 Under the 4th page, the references to the evidence mentioned above shall be deemed to read “the evidence mentioned above and the evidence described in No. B No. 4.”

Under 5, 6 lines “Plaintiff A” are referred to as “Plaintiff A”.

6 The length from 9 to 14 lines shall be as follows:

f) Plaintiff B and C were indicted for committing a crime of violation of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act as seen earlier, and on December 22, 2017, the part concerning the crime of violation of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act was found guilty and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 13, 2018.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff sought revocation of the decision to withhold the payment of medical care benefit costs against the Defendant, but the Defendant did not confirm the aforementioned decision to withhold the payment. As such, the part on the claim to revoke the above decision to withhold the payment among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not meet the eligible requirements. (2) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s decision to withhold the payment against the Plaintiff on March 14, 2018 is identical to the foregoing, and the Plaintiff submitted an application to modify the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on March 26, 2018, and sought revocation of the “decision to withhold the payment of medical care benefit costs” in seeking revocation of the “decision to withhold the payment of the medical care benefit costs” on September 26, 2018. It is clear that the purport of the claim and the grounds of the claim were modified in exchange for the purpose of exchange.

Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff A seeks the cancellation of the final decision to withhold payment, which is a final disposition, the part of the claim to revoke the decision to withhold payment among the lawsuits in this case.