1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspending qualification for one-month medical license against the Plaintiff on May 30, 2018 shall be revoked.

2...

1. Circumstances and details of the disposition;

A. On October 26, 201, the Plaintiff is a doctor who opened and operates a “Banwon” (hereinafter “instant member”), a health care institution under the National Health Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant member”).

Where documents related to the facts constituting the cause of disposition are forged or altered or falsely claimed medical expenses by fraudulent or other unlawful means - The Plaintiff shall perform the vision correction (e.g., food, d.) subject to non-benefit from February 1, 2012 to August 31, 2012, and shall receive the expenses from the patient as non-benefit and then claim medical expenses before and after the surgery (e.g., medical examination fees, examination fees, and issuance of out-of-the-counter prescriptions), as medical care benefit costs, [Attachment] Article 4 of the Regulations on Administrative Measures related to Medical Services under Article 66 (1) 7 of the Medical Service Act [Attachment] related to the criteria for administrative disposition (Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 153, Aug. 7, 2012)

2. Individual standards:

(a) 38;

B. On May 30, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition suspending qualification for the Plaintiff’s license for one month (i.e., September 23, 2018 to October 22, 2018) as follows.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s previous Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 15716, Aug. 14, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(A) Article 66(1)7 of the instant disposition deeming that the instant disposition constituted “when a false claim for medical expenses is filed by improper means, such as speed trees.” However, for the following reasons, the instant disposition is not recognized.” However, the Defendant’s specific circumstance as the ground for the instant disposition is that “the Plaintiff performed the vision correction subject to non-benefit to the patient and received the cost as non-benefit from the patient, and then claimed medical expenses before and after the period was paid from the patient as non-benefits.”

However, the plaintiff is for the treatment of spacificism and spacific spacificism.