1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended by this court are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts admitted by the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The employees belonging to the Defendant committed the following illegal acts against the Plaintiff.

(A) The instant hospital is a hospital duly established.

Nevertheless, the employees of the Defendant believed only the notification of the investigation results of the instant case, and concluded that the instant hospital operated by the Plaintiff was established twice in violation of the Medical Service Act, and ordered the Defendant to take the instant refusal disposition and the first and second restitution disposition (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “each of the instant dispositions”).

Even if the instant hospital was established twice as alleged by the Defendant, there is no legal basis for the Defendant to refuse the payment of medical care benefit costs.

In addition, even if the patient was induced by providing convenience in violation of Article 27 (3) of the Medical Service Act, the defendant cannot refuse to pay the medical care benefit cost unless the patient was treated by the hospital of this case.

Nevertheless, the employees of the defendant ordered the defendant to refuse the payment of this case by negligence, such as interfering with the interpretation of the statutes.

(B) In collusion with the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, employees of the Defendant unfairly reduced the costs of health care benefit claimed by the Defendant from June 2014.

(2) The Plaintiff, due to the illegal acts as referred to in paragraph (1) of the Defendant’s employees, closed down the instant hospital on September 1, 2014, and incurred positive damages equivalent to KRW 1,129,128,330 as a result thereof.

In addition, the plaintiff suffered mental suffering which cannot be said to be the closure of the hospital of this case.

(3) Therefore, pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act, the Defendant as an employer is part of the Plaintiff’s active damages of KRW 1,129,128,330.