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 is a medical corporation that operates the Malcheon-ro 33, Seo-gu 17 (Yannam-dong), a general hospital, “Seong Civil Hospital” (hereinafter “instant hospital”).

B. On June 21, 2016, the Defendant violated Article 56(3) of the Medical Service Act by using the phrase “the Specialized Hospital for the Designation of the National Health Insurance Corporation”, “In Incheon-do Special Hospital”, and “vertebrate Special Hospital” on December 24, 2015, respectively, on the Internet Blogs of the instant hospital operated by the Plaintiff, using the phrase “the Internet Blogs of the instant hospital operated by the Plaintiff,” and making a false exaggerated advertisement that could mislead many unspecified persons to believe that the instant hospital was designated as a specialized hospital by the Ministry of Health and Welfare or the National Health Insurance Corporation.

(hereinafter “instant violation”) imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 16,125,00 in lieu of one month of business suspension pursuant to Articles 64(1) and 67(1) of the Medical Service Act on the ground that the instant violation was committed.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 29, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion indicated the word “specialized hospital” on the Blobs of the instant hospital was caused by negligence by the personnel in charge of the publicity room who did not recognize the provisions of the Medical Service Act, and the Plaintiff deleted all comments containing the phrase “specialized hospital” immediately after becoming aware of the violation of the Medical Service Act.

The plaintiff was merely stated as a mere prior meaning of "specialized" and was not intended to advertise "specialized hospital of the Ministry of Health and Welfare" as a specialized hospital of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and "specialized hospital" is generally used to publicize the hospital.