1. As to the Plaintiff:

(a) Refund disposition of KRW 24,057,197 in medical expenses related to B as of May 19, 2009; 22,81 in refund disposition of KRW 24,057.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. (1) The Plaintiff: A patient who is treated as an acute typosis in the attached list of the school juristic persons operating a hospital (hereinafter “Plaintiff hospital”) which is a health care institution as prescribed by the National Health Insurance Act (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”): A patient who is treated as a acute typosis, typosis typosis, acute typosis, typosis, etc. for each period indicated in the “medical treatment period” column in the attached list of disposition at the Plaintiff hospital;

B. The details of collection of medical expenses for the patient of this case by the Plaintiff hospital: The same shall apply to the amount indicated in the “individual charge” column in the attached disposition list.

C. The patient of this case: the defendant's application to confirm whether he is entitled to medical care benefits under Article 43-2 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act

D. The Defendant’s disposition of refund of medical expenses to the Plaintiff: (a) the “the date of the disposition” in the attached list “the date of the disposition” is confirmed as excessive personal charges on each patient listed in the same list as indicated on each date; and (b) the Plaintiff hospital’s medical treatment scope and method prescribed by the National Health Insurance Act and the Regulations on the Medical Care Benefits for National Health Insurance; (c) the Plaintiff hospital’s examination and treatment conducted by new treatment methods that are not publicly notified as medical care benefits or non-benefit; and (d) the type of illegal collection (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “non-voluntary collection of type A, B, and C”) of the medical care benefits (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant non-medical treatment”), but the examination process is likely to reduce the amount of medical care benefits; and (b) the Plaintiff hospital’s claim for non-benefit medical expenses (hereinafter referred to as “non-payment collection”) or the treatment fees were already reflected in the treatment fees and filed for refund to the instant patient in excess of the collection volume (hereinafter referred to as “non-treatment collection volume B”).