1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The details and details of the disposition are the intention of opening and operating a “C Council member” in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant Council member”) on December 11, 2014.

On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff operated and managed the Internet homepage (D) of the instant member. Of the above Internet homepage, the Plaintiff made it possible for the Plaintiff to publish the type of “after-the-job treatment of patients” in the category of “after-the-job treatment,” the equipment after-the-job treatment of patients, and the pictures before and after the patient’s completion of the procedure, and let many unspecified persons see it.

(hereinafter “instant violation”). On February 3, 2015, the Defendant gave prior notice to the Plaintiff that a medical institution may suspend its business on the ground of the instant violation.

On July 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to “as the Plaintiff would receive a summary order for the instant violation as criminal facts and apply for formal trial to the Seoul Southern District Court, the Plaintiff would suspend administrative disposition until the trial is completed.”

On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million by the Seoul Southern District Court for a violation of the Medical Service Act regarding the instant violation, and filed a petition for formal trial against this order. However, on April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of KRW 1 million with respect to the violation of the Medical Service Act. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On October 6, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 11,250,00 in lieu of the disposition of business suspension on the ground of Articles 56(2)11 and 56(3), 64(1)5, and 67(1) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 13658, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff, while operating the equipment after-sales procedure on the Internet homepage, made it possible for a certain number of unspecified members to search without restriction.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The defendant's disposition of this case.