1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 30, 2010 to September 30, 2010, Plaintiff Jinjin Welfare Foundation is a non-profit corporation operating the Mangjin Welfare Complex (Medical Care Center for the Aged) at 286, Jinju-si, Jinju-si, and Plaintiff A is a person operating C (Joint Living Home for the Aged) from November 19, 2012 to Jinju-si.

B. From May 11, 2015 to May 14, 2015, Defendant Jinju market conducted a field investigation on the details of long-term care benefits for the Plaintiffs.

On July 20, 2015, the defendant Jinjin Welfare Foundation rendered a disposition of 106 days for business suspension to the plaintiff Jinjin Welfare Foundation on the grounds that the plaintiff's "(i) violation of the criteria for additional placement of human resources, (ii) violation of the criteria for additional assignment of human resources, (iii) violation of the criteria for excess of the quota, (iv) a claim without reduction of the subscription period for liability insurance, and (v) violation of the criteria for additional assignment of human resources, (i) violation of the criteria for assignment of human resources, (ii) violation of the criteria for additional assignment of human resources, (iii) violation of the criteria for additional assignment of human resources, (iv) violation of the criteria for subscription to liability insurance without reduction of the subscription period for liability insurance

(hereinafter “instant No. 1 Disposition”). (c)

On July 2, 2015, on the ground that the plaintiffs committed the above violation, Defendant Corporation issued a disposition to receive long-term care benefits of KRW 115,688,220 to the Foundation for the return of KRW 115,68,220, and issued a disposition to the plaintiffs A to receive long-term care benefits of KRW 64,44,360.

(hereinafter “instant Disposition 2” and “each of the instant dispositions” are combined with the instant Disposition 1, and hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap’s 1 through 4, Eul’s 1, 2, Eul’s 22 and 23 as well as the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Defendants, who did not have any ground for disposition 1, did not have any ground for the plaintiffs' assertion, based on D, E, etc.'s confirmation, and E's answer form, deemed that there was a violation of the maximum number of employees and daily claim during the outer stay period. However, the above confirmation form, etc.