1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit;

(2) As a result, on May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff reported that “the Plaintiff violated the National Health Insurance Act, etc., and subsequently confirmed and notified the Plaintiff of unjust enrichment KRW 74,912,610.” Of the details of unjust enrichment, the part of KRW 4,087,659, which claimed for the calculation standard of medical examination fees, among the above details of unjust enrichment, should be calculated by 50% of the prescribed points of medical examination fees, in a case where the Plaintiff received or received only a prescription after consulting the patient’s family with the doctor in charge of medical treatment at his/her own expense and counseling with the patient’s family. However, even in a case where only the medicine or prescription was issued after consultation with the patient’s family members at his/her own expense, the part of the claim for medical examination fees and re-medical examination fees was made by 100%.”

(3) The Defendant’s civil petition of this case contains the following: “D hospital grants its employees allocated a license to visit the hospital to give medical treatment to the nearby persons or their relatives, and on the set page of the outpatient nurse ****** in a case where a doctor does not directly face with a patient, the Defendant appears to have claimed that the hospital provided a false medical treatment to a patient and filed the instant civil petition.

(4) In fact, 12 persons, including I, working at the D Hospital upon the Defendant’s application for the instant civil petition, were investigated for a suspected violation of the Medical Service Act. Among them, I stated in the medical records that the patient’s family member, treatment of the patient’s family member, and treatment on behalf of the patient. As such, I received a non-prosecution decision on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the medical records were falsely prepared.

(5) In the case of this case, the Incheon District Court does not recognize the facts charged against the plaintiff itself, but did not reduce or exempt the individual contributions en bloc for all the visiting patients.