1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant's head of Si/Gun shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's head of Si/Gun.

1. The court’s explanation concerning this part of the disposition is the same as this part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus citing the judgment of the first instance pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The court’s explanation on this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus citing the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the relevant statutes is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, the judgment of the first instance is accepted pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. 1) The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the existence of a disposition are the same as the stated in this part of the judgment of the first instance. As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act refer to the judgment of the first instance court pursuant to the main text. 2) Whether a restrictive administrative disposition as to whether a discretionary power has been abused or abused has gone beyond the scope of discretionary power under social norms should be determined by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the act

(1) Article 68 of the Medical Service Act provides that “The standards for administrative disposition” prescribed in attached Table 4 of the Rules on Administrative Dispositions concerning Medical Service Act under Article 68 of the Medical Service Act is merely the standards for internal administrative affairs of administrative agencies, and thus, does not have any legal effect.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16318 delivered on February 23, 1996). Written and oral arguments of Gap evidence 1-2, 3, 5 through 8, Eul evidence 2, and 4 through 7 (including branch numbers) are stated.