1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on July 11, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person running “C”, a long-term care institution under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for Long-Term in the building B and the third floor of Dongbcheon-si (hereinafter “instant medical care center”).

B. On May 10, 2016, D, a caregiver of the instant medical care center, went beyond the upper right shoulder of the beneficiary E (hereinafter “victim”) who sent his/her place to a ward on the third floor of the instant medical care center, in his/her hand.

(hereinafter “instant assault incident”). C.

On July 11, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition for six months of suspension of business (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 37(1)6 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged and Article 29 [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 435, Aug. 31, 2016; hereinafter the same) on the ground that an employee of a long-term care institution committed an assault against a beneficiary’s body.

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Article 29 [Attachment 2] and Article 37(1)6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged Act, which stipulates that the business suspension cannot be mitigated without regard to the motive, content, degree, and consequence of the Plaintiff’s alleged violation, shall not be effective since Article 29(3)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act, excluding all violations of Article 37(1)6 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance

Furthermore, the instant disposition not only causes severe inconvenience to the recipients admitted to the instant medical care center, but also causes concern that employees of the instant medical care center may lose their place of work to prevent them from being sustaining their livelihood, and the Plaintiff, who operates the instant medical care center, may not be exempt from bankruptcy.