1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a doctor, the Plaintiff operated “C Council member” (hereinafter “Plaintiff Council member”) on the 3rd floor of the building located in Busan Northern-gu B (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On July 29, 2016, the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office treated a newborn baby from May 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014, not from the Plaintiff’s medical institution established, but from the 5-11th floor of the instant building (hereinafter “Dsan Women’s Medical Center”) and suspended the prosecution on the suspected violation of the Medical Service Act.

C. The Defendant, based on Article 66(1)10 of the Medical Service Act and Article 4 and [Attachment Table] subparag. 2(a)22 of the Rules on Administrative Measures Concerning Medical Services, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act as stated in the above charged facts, shall be subject to a disposition of one month and fifteen days of the suspension of license qualification (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[The facts without dispute over the basis for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act provides medical services within a medical institution established by a medical personnel to prevent the occurrence of harm to the patient's health because the quality of medical care is lowered when medical care is performed at a place other than a medical institution. In addition, since the Plaintiff provided medical services to a newborn baby at the instant clinic located on the upper floor of the Plaintiff Council member, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff provided medical services in violation of the purport of the above provision. Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not violate Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act if a newborn baby who has weak immunity moves to a place for medical treatment.

Even if this is different, the plaintiff's medical treatment should be provided at the site of the patient pursuant to Article 33 (1) 5 of the Medical Service Act.