1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of dismissal or addition of some contents, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

Article 6 "Article 6" shall be added to "Article 4" for the 10th part of the judgment of the first instance.

The 11th judgment of the first instance court "not having worked at the same time as the thickness" shall be deemed as "not having worked at the same time".

Following the 8th judgment of the first instance court, “No reason exists” is added to “(the same shall apply even if the Plaintiff’s each statement in Gap evidence No. 19 through 21 submitted by the appellate court is added.”

The 13th judgment of the first instance court shall be deemed to be “(c)”, and the 15th judgment “(c)” shall be deemed to be “(d)”.

The following shall be added to the 14th judgment of the first instance. The 18th judgment "less there is no reason":

(3) The general principles for calculating expenses for long-term care benefits in Chapter I of the above notice.

I. IN GENERAL.

2. In the part, the expenses for long-term care benefits are referred to as “expenses for benefits,” and the addition and reduction of expenses for long-term care benefits in Chapter III of the former Public Notice on Long-Term Care Benefits Expenses (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2013-160, Oct. 16, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 2513, Jan. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No.

Ⅰ. Addition of expenses for benefits;

2. The additional assignment of human resources defines “Corporation charges” as “the amount calculated by deducting co-payment from the cost of benefits” and adding the following details to “the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit” under the first instance judgment No. 15 of the first instance judgment. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s calculation of the amount of recovery was erroneous under the premise that the amount of recovery was limited to the portion of the Corporation’s charges, and that the calculation of the reduced amount of the expenses for benefits arising from the failure to subscribe to the liability insurance for professionals was erroneous, as seen earlier.