1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 12, 2005, the Plaintiff was established and operated for the purpose of establishing and operating a sanatorium for the aged on May 12, 2005, and established and operated "B" and "C" located in Busan, Seo-gu, Busan under the Welfare of Older Persons Act and the Long-term Care Insurance Act for the Aged.

B. From October 5, 2015 to September 9 of the same month, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation into B with respect to the period from August 2011 to January 2014 (the extension from March 2014 to March 2014), from April 2015 to August 2015, and from September 2015, from September 201 to August 2015, and from September 2012 to August 2015 (hereinafter “the instant on-site investigation”). As a result, the Plaintiff confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff did not meet the criteria for placement of human resources, such as caregivers and sanitarians, but did not claim the cost of health care, and even if it did not violate the criteria for placement of human resources, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff additionally claimed for the cost of health care benefits and received the additional cost of health care.

C. On December 14, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to collect expenses for long-term care benefits of KRW 127,428,320 on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the standards for placement of human resources, as shown in the attached Table 1 attached hereto, and a disposition to collect expenses for long-term care benefits of KRW 265,713,490 on C (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection, but was dismissed. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal but was dismissed on October 16, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, 8, 11, 12, 19 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) The Defendant’s disposition based on double investigation is prior to the instant field investigation.