1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension for six months against the Plaintiff on March 13, 2018 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a “Cmedical care center” (hereinafter “instant medical care center”) under the Long-Term Care Insurance Act for Long-Term Care in Young-gun, Young-gun, Young-gu.

B. From around September 12:25, 2017 to around 13:20 the same day, the Medical Care Center D carried out an injury on the part of the victim, such as the chest, distribution, and double arms of E (hereinafter “victim”) from around September 13, 2017 to around 13:20 of the same day, and the victim suffered an injury, such as the scarfying of the chest wall, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment.

C. On March 13, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition for six months of business suspension pursuant to Article 37(1)6 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that a worker of a long-term care institution committed an act of assaulting or injuring a beneficiary’s body.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 9 through 11 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On September 19, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff filed a voluntary report and requested on-site investigations to an institution specializing in protecting older persons in Gyeong-do immediately after the Plaintiff discovered several holess from the body of beneficiaries E on September 19, 2017. As to the crime of violating the Welfare of Older Persons Act, a summary order of KRW 3 million was issued (Seoul District Court Young-gun District Court Young-gun District Court Young-gun District Court Young-gun District Court Young-gun Branch 2018 high-level 91). However, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition without suspicion on the violation of the Welfare of Older Persons Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not neglect due care and supervision to prevent the violation of D’s duties. In light of its scale, it is difficult for most beneficiaries of the instant medical care center to accept all the recipients of the instant medical care center, and the movement of most beneficiaries residing in the instant medical care center to other remote areas due to suffering from old age, dementia, etc., suffering from dementia, etc., to a medical care