1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a long-term care institution, which is a sanatorium for older persons, in the name of “C” in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant medical care center”).

B. From January 11, 2016 to November 14, 2015, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation into the details of long-term care benefits provided by the instant medical care center from November 201 to November 7, 2015. On October 7, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision to recover the amount from the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 43 of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act, on the following grounds: (a) the number of the instant medical care center’s caregivers required to be mandatorily placed from November 2014 to June 2015 (excluding April 2015) without any decrease in the number of medical care workers due to the violation of the standards for placement of human resources; (b) the Defendant claimed expenses for long-term care benefits and received the total amount of KRW 37,212,630 unfairly.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The specific grounds for the instant disposition are ① (a) a caregiver D performed other duties at the instant medical care center from November 201 to November 2015, 2015; (b) a caregiver reported that he/she was employed as a caregiver at the instant medical care center during the said period (hereinafter “grounds for Disposition 1”); and (b) a caregiver E reported that he/she performed cooking duties at the instant medical care center from November 201 to June 2015, he/she was deemed to have worked as a caregiver for the said period differently from the fact, while performing cooking duties at the instant medical care center.

(hereinafter referred to as 'the ground for the second disposition') is the case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) D is performing the duties of a caregiver at the instant medical care center, and thus, the grounds for first disposition are not acknowledged. (2) The former Enforcement Rule of the Welfare of Older Persons Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 203, Aug. 6, 2014) does not explicitly exclude the cooking duties from the duties of a caregiver.