The imposition of penalty surcharges imposed on the Plaintiff on September 11, 2017 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. From March 2, 2015 to May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff is a dentist who established and operated C dental clinics (hereinafter “instant dental clinic”).

B. On September 11, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 105,694,200 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff, as indicated in the table of grounds for disposition, was liable to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 21,138,840 to the National Health Insurance Corporation by deceit or other unlawful means (the difference between the total amount and the amount of unfair amount by reason of disposition, in the process of treating the fractional amount of national funds),” in lieu of the business suspension of health care institutions pursuant to Articles 99(1) and 98(1)1 of the National Health Insurance Act, in lieu of the business suspension of health care institutions (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed a false claim for the number of days within the grounds for disposition under the table of the grounds for disposition, and received a total of 5,759,864 won, including medical examination fees, from the National Health Insurance Corporation, even if some of the medical professionals did not receive medical treatment at the dental clinic of this case.

After the treatment subject to non-benefit, the Plaintiff filed a double claim for medical care benefit costs with the “intest or salinal shock, etc.” subject to non-benefit, and received all of the relevant costs from the applicants, but filed a claim for medical care benefit costs of KRW 14,310,513 with the National Health Insurance Corporation, including the examination fees, etc.

Although the Plaintiff filed a false claim for treatment, etc., the Plaintiff claimed and received the total amount of KRW 1,070,192 for medical care benefit costs related to the Plaintiff, as if so, although the Plaintiff did not actually provide part of the winners with the treatment, i.e., the Japanese impulse treatment.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

B. 1) Whether the Plaintiff’s ground for disposition is recognized or not, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows.