1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, in addition to additional determination as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, the same shall be cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. On May 22, 2007, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Minister of Health and Welfare gave the Defendant the guidance that “the TRI prosecutor taken to find out the cause of the disease in the process of treating patients who complained of symptoms, such as the sobalone, is the subject of medical care benefits.” Since the Defendant gave a guidance to determine whether the TRI prosecutor is the subject of medical care benefits in accordance with the above guidelines, the instant disposition made on the ground that the TRI prosecutor’s identification of symptoms, such as the sobalone, does not constitute the subject of medical care benefits, is unlawful as it goes against the Plaintiff’s above guidelines or the trust in guidance.

B. The judgment of this court 1) In general, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the acts of administrative agencies in administrative legal relations, the first administrative agency's public opinion list that is the object of trust to the individual, the second administrative agency's public opinion list that is the object of trust to the individual should not be attributable to the individual, and the individual should have committed any act based on the individual's trust that is the object of trust to the individual. Third, by the administrative agency's disposition contrary to the above opinion list, the administrative agency should have conducted any act against the above opinion list, thereby infringing the individual's trust in the opinion list. If any administrative disposition satisfies these requirements, it is against the principle of the protection of trust unless it is likely to remarkably undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of the third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du10931, Jan. 17, 2008).