1. On April 26, 2016, the Defendant’s business suspension disposition against the Plaintiff for 50 days is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

From March 27, 2009 to December 3, 2009, the details and details of the disposition were operated by the Plaintiff at the same place from March 27, 2009, and from December 2, 201 to December 3, 2009, the Plaintiff operated the C Pharmacy in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 318, from December 8, 2009 to December 1, 201, the E Pharmacy in the first floor of Seongdong-gu Seoul D D Building, and from March 6, 2012 to May 1, 2015. The F Pharmacy is operated in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from July 2, 2015 to December 2, 2015.

(2) The Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (hereinafter referred to as the “Review and Assessment Service”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Review and Assessment Service”) also conducted an on-site investigation with regard to health care benefit, etc. by stipulating that “from March 18, 2013 to November 30, 2011 during the period subject to the investigation, the Plaintiff becomes aware that the quantity of drugs claimed for health care benefit is larger than that of specific drugs owned by the National Health Insurance Corporation, and that “from March 18, 2013 to April 30, 2012 during the period subject to the investigation and from November 30, 201”.

On April 26, 2016, based on the results of the above on-site investigation, the Defendant rendered a 50-day disposition for the suspension of health care institutions (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 98(1)1 of the former National Health Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 13985, Feb. 3, 2016) for the following reasons against the Plaintiff.

The manufacture of alternative medicines shall be notified after the prescription doctor in preparation of alternative medicines of the medicines for which the ingredients, content and dosage of the prescribed medicines are identical and which are recognized to have biological equivalence.

However, the Plaintiff, as indicated in the [Attachment 1] List, did not make an ex post facto notification to the doctor, etc. who issued the relevant prescription, even though he/she prepared a drug in lieu of the “pharmaceuticals purchased and prepared” in the attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant substitute drug”) of the drug (attached Form 1) entered in the prescription slip by a doctor or dentist (attached Form 1).

In addition, the plaintiff is the prescribed drug of this case with the price higher than the substitute drug of this case in the National Health Insurance Corporation.