1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of collecting each of the medical care benefit costs against the Plaintiff on September 23, 2013.

1. The reasons for the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: “At the six pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, two (including writing boxes; hereinafter the same shall apply) “I will be punished by fine”; “I will be punished by imprisonment with labor; “I will not take any legal, tax, labor, and monetary responsibility;” “I will be punished by imprisonment with labor with labor on several occasions”; “I will be punished by imprisonment with labor on Apr. 14, 2013”; “I will be punished by imprisonment with labor on Apr. 4, 2013”; “I will be punished by imprisonment with labor on Apr. 14, 2013”; “I will be punished by imprisonment with labor on Apr. 14, 2013 through Nov. 19, 199; and this will be cited by the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

[4] Whether discretionary power has been abused or abused

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) Whether an administrative act is a binding act or discretionary act ought to be determined on an individual basis by taking into account both the forms of stay and language of a provision that serves as the basis of the relevant disposition, the main purpose and characteristics of the administrative sector to which the relevant act belongs, the individual nature and type of the relevant act itself, etc. In light of the possibility of determining public interests based on the discretion of an administrative agency, judicial review of discretionary act does not make an independent conclusion, and only the court examines whether the relevant act constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, and whether the relevant administrative agency violates the principle of mistake of facts and proportionality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du3702, Oct. 4, 2018). If a disposition was rendered without weighing the public interest to achieve the requirements and effect of a disposition by which an administrative agency was unaware of the absence of discretionary power and the content and degree of disadvantage suffered by the other party, it is an abuse of discretionary power.