1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a dentist, served in the Dental Correction Division of the National Health Insurance Corporation from September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011.

B. On January 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for verification of qualifications for a dentist’s qualification examination, which is scheduled to be conducted on the following grounds: “A person who has served as an exclusive supervisor at a dental hospital or training institution for a period of not less than one year but less than three years” under Article 18-2(3)1 of the Regulations on Dental Specialists’ Training, Recognition of Qualifications, etc. (hereinafter “Regulations”).

C. On December 14, 2017, the Defendant publicly announced on the website that the Plaintiff did not have the qualification to undergo a dentist’s qualifying examination on the ground that it did not constitute “a person who has served as an exclusive consultant at a training dental hospital or training institution for at least one year but less than three years” under Article 18-2(3)1 of the instant provision, on the ground that it does not constitute “a person who has served as an exclusive consultant at a training hospital or training institution for less than seven years.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 4-6, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Minister of Health and Welfare determines whether to apply for the qualification examination for dentist specialists of the main purport of the safety resistance in accordance with the instant provision. Thus, the administrative agency that issued the instant disposition is the Minister of Health

The instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition against the Defendant is unlawful as a lawsuit against a non-qualified person.

B. (A) The main text of Article 13(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “The revocation suit shall be the defendant unless otherwise provided by other Acts.”

B. Article 77 of the Medical Service Act.