The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a dentist employed and worked at C dental clinic (D dental clinic changed from May 8, 2015 to March 2016) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu (hereinafter “instant clinic”).

B. On April 4, 2017, the prosecutor in charge acknowledged the suspected violation of the Medical Service Act against the Plaintiff. The prosecutor suspended the Plaintiff from indictment by taking into account the following facts: “The Plaintiff was employed by the instant member of the instant member, who was unable to establish a medical institution under the Medical Service Act, and provided medical treatment to the patients from April 2015 to March 2016, and violated the Medical Service Act by providing medical treatment to the patients from around March 2015,” and then did not have any criminal record; “The Plaintiff was subject to the crime committed during the job offering column on the G Association website site; and the period of service is short.”

(c)

On October 18, 2019, pursuant to Article 66(1)2 of the Medical Service Act and subparagraphs 1(d) and 2(a)36(a) of the former Rules of Administrative Dispositions related to Medical Care (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 587, Aug. 17, 2018; hereinafter “Rules of this case”) for the following reasons, the Defendant issued a disposition suspending the qualification of dentists on January 15 (from December 28, 2019 to February 11, 2020) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Where a person who is not eligible to establish a medical institution conducts medical practice under employment, - The plaintiff was employed by F and E, who is not a medical person, from April 2015 to March 2016, by a member of the instant council established by E, who is not a medical person, to be employed by the said F and E, who cannot be a medical institution founder from April 2015 to March 2016, and performed medical practice. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of disposition verified the public notice of the instant member’s job seeking through a reliable G Association official bulletin board and interview.