The imposition of penalty surcharges imposed on the Plaintiff on July 10, 2017 and July 28, 2017 shall be revoked in entirety.

The costs of lawsuit.

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a medical corporation that established and operated a C Hospital in Ulsan-gu B (hereinafter “instant hospital”).

B. On July 10, 2017, the Defendant imposed a disposition on the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff, from November 1, 2012 to December 22, 2013 (hereinafter “instant period”) imposed an examination, etc. on certain persons who were enrolled in an injury or disease, such as bad faith, living modified organisms, etc., on which medical care benefits can be available, and received at least the standard amount from them and unfairly paid KRW 2,313,519 in total, and ② allowedD, who is not qualified as a pharmacist, to prepare medicines, and then requested the National Health Insurance Corporation to pay KRW 210,49,948 in total, by claiming for medical care benefits, such as medicine expenses and medication guidance fees, and received unjustly payment of KRW 210,49,98,948.” Based on Articles 99(1) and 98(1)1 of the former National Health Insurance Act (Amended by Act No. 13985, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) in lieu of business suspension, 30637

C. On July 28, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 417,226,850, in lieu of a disposition suspending a medical care institution based on Articles 29(1) and 28(1)1 of the Medical Care Assistance Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was unfairly paid medical care costs of KRW 83,464,370 in total by the same method as the grounds for the above disposition.

(A) Each disposition imposing a penalty surcharge in the above case shall be subject to the imposition of the penalty surcharge in the above case). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7-9, and the purport

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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff employed the pharmacist E as the pharmacist of the instant hospital during the instant period.

E, according to the agreement with the Plaintiff, during the instant period from November 1, 2012 to November 19, 2013, E was engaged in the preparation of medicines as a pharmacist, such as attending two to three times a week from November 19, 2013, and supervising medicines made by mixing D with the drugs.

In particular, E is an act of preparing D pharmaceutical products.