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, as a doctor, has established and operated a “C Council member” as a medical care institution in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B.

B. On January 12, 2017, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced that “the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 11 million and a surcharge of KRW 14770,770,000,000 as a penalty for a violation of the Medical Service Act, with respect to the crime that “the Plaintiff was provided with economic benefits equivalent to KRW 147,770,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the purpose of sales promotion, such as inducing the adoption of drugs by its employees from March 201 to December 2013.”

(2015No1829). The Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court on May 11, 2017, but the said judgment became final and conclusive.

(2017Do1494, and hereinafter referred to as “instant criminal judgment”), the final appellate judgment (hereinafter referred to as “instant criminal judgment”).

As the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, on June 12, 2017, the Defendant: (a) Article 66(1)9 of the former Medical Service Act (Amended by Act No. 14220, May 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) Article 4 [Attachment] of the Rules on Administrative Dispositions Concerning Medical Treatment]

2.(a)

16) [Attachment 2] Based on [Attachment 2], a disposition was taken to suspend qualification for a doctor’s license for six months (from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(2) Although the Plaintiff’s written disposition (i.e., the period of acquisition of unfair economic benefits from March 201 to November 2013) stated that the period of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s economic benefits is “from March 2011 to November 2013.” However, the amount of economic benefits that the Plaintiff received for the purpose of sales promotion is indicated as KRW 1,477,00,000, and the pertinent written disposition is regarded as a criminal decision in the instant criminal case, and the Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that the instant disposition was taken on the basis of the content of the instant criminal judgment. As such, the period of acquisition is a clerical error, such as the crime of the instant criminal judgment, which is “from March 201 to December 2013