1. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant’s revocation of the two-month measure of suspending the qualification of doctor that the Plaintiff rendered.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a doctor, worked at the “B Hospital” from around 2009 to February 2013 (hereinafter “instant hospital”). From August 201 to February 2013, the Plaintiff was in charge of the duties of the “Director General” of the instant hospital from August 201 to February 2013.

B. On August 17, 2016, the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office received 2 million won from D, which was a business member of C from August 201 to December 201 of the same year, for the purpose of adopting medicines and inducing for prescription, and issued a disposition of suspending indictment on the suspicion of violating the Medical Service Act.

C. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant issued a two-month disposition of license suspension pursuant to Article 23-2(2) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 13658, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 66(1)9 of the former Medical Service Act and Article 4 [Attachment Table 2(a) [Attachment Table] 2(f) of the former Rules on Administrative Dispositions Relating to Medical Care (amended by Ordinance No. 190, Mar. 29, 2013) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed it on June 20, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) According to Article 66(6) of the Medical Service Act, if five years have elapsed since the date on which the cause for the disposition of suspension occurred, the Defendant cannot suspend the qualification. The part of the Plaintiff’s receipt of KRW 400,000 per month from August 201 to November 201 cannot be considered as the ground for the disposition of suspension of qualification, since the period of five years has lapsed. (2) The Plaintiff was in the position of the Director General of the hospital of this case, and used the amount of profit acquired by the Plaintiff as a result of abuse of discretionary power. The Plaintiff was only in the position of the Director General of the Hospital of this case, and was used as the cost of the Council