1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Case summary

A. The Plaintiff is a doctor who served in the National Medical Center from March 1, 2008 with a medical license.

B. On March 22, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “an act of unfairly receiving an economic benefit equivalent to KRW 1,600,000,00 in connection with the duties, in violation of Article 66(1)1 of the former Medical Service Act, and Article 32(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, was done from March 2, 2010 to June 2010”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant warning act”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence 2 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. In the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant warning act was illegal disposition and sought the revocation of the relevant warning act. Accordingly, the Defendant’s warning act is not a disposition affecting the other party’s rights and obligations, and thus, the subject of the revocation lawsuit cannot be recognized. Therefore, the instant lawsuit should be dismissed.

B. Whether a certain act of an administrative agency can be a subject of an appeal cannot be determined abstractly, and a specific and individual decision should be made, taking into consideration the content and purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form, and procedure of the act, the actual relation between the act and the disadvantage suffered by interested parties such as the other party, the principle of administration by the rule of law, the attitude of interested parties related to the act, etc.

An act which does not directly cause a direct legal change in the legal status of the other party or other related persons, such as acts, intermediation, solicitation, and de facto notification, etc. inside an administrative agency, shall not be subject to appeal litigation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Du43974 Decided March 12, 2015). C.

Based on the above legal principles, we examine whether the instant warning act constitutes “disposition” as the subject of an appeal litigation.

The entry of Gap evidence 2-2.