1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operates a long-term care institution (long-term care and communal living home for older persons) (hereinafter “instant medical care center”) under the trade name “C” in Kimpo-si B and 201 Dong 103 (hereinafter “C”).

B. From March 3, 2015 to March 6, 2015, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation into the details of benefits from March 3, 2015 to January 2015 of the instant medical care center. As a result, the Defendant determined that “(i) even if a nursing assistant D worked for less than 160 hours a month from November 2013 to November 2014, the Defendant claimed and received expenses for long-term care benefits on the premise that he/she worked for more than 160 hours a month, and ② exempted E from co-payment for profit-making purposes from July 2014 to August 2014.”

C. On May 13, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff to suspend the operation of the instant medical care center for one month and 84 days pursuant to Article 37(1) of the former Long-Term Care Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 13647, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, Gap 2's each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the claim (1) served in the “G” (hereinafter “G medical care center”) which is another long-term care institution operated by the Plaintiff, while serving in the instant medical care center for more than 80 hours a month in total in the daily average hours including weekends, and when combined with F’s working hours and D’s working hours, the Plaintiff did not claim reimbursement costs by fraud or other improper means, as it exceeds 160 hours a month.

(2) In the instant medical care center, E, the parents of H, who worked as a caregiver, was admitted to the instant medical care center. Since the Plaintiff did not pay the amount of co-payment on the ground that H is economically difficult even though the Plaintiff demanded payment of co-payment to H, the Plaintiff reduced or exempted the amount of co-payment for profit-making purposes.