1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance and the evidence adopted and examined by this court are justified in finding the facts in the court of first instance

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where additional judgments are added as stated in Paragraph (2). Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. On-site investigation conducted by the defendant against the plaintiff, in violation of the guidelines for on-site investigation of medical care institutions and the main sentence of Article 17(1) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations, the defendant requested the plaintiff to submit a unilateral data in a high-tension atmosphere, and without providing the person subject to investigation with sufficient opportunity to explain, C's factual confirmation (Evidence 1) and E's factual confirmation (Evidence 5), which is the head of the facility of the institution in this case, and E's representative director F and above E's confirmation (Evidence 6) are prepared. Thus, the value of evidence cannot be acknowledged in the above factual confirmation, etc.

Rather, according to the facts confirmation, etc. of the relevant persons submitted by the Plaintiff, it may be recognized that C met the monthly standard working hours, so the instant disposition should be revoked as unlawful.

B. Determination 1 on the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the respective statements in the evidence No. 1, No. 5, No. 6, and No. 8. A) The Defendant, from October 30, 2017 to November 2, 2017, conducted an on-site investigation with respect to the confirmation of the details of claims against the Plaintiff’s violation of the criteria for calculating false and provisional depreciation (hereinafter “instant on-site investigation”), and before conducting the said on-site investigation.