1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a special corporation that is entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor with the industrial accident compensation insurance business under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the Defendants are medical doctors, and Defendant B operated D Hospital in the Government City C (hereinafter “instant hospital”) from November 4, 2011 to April 30, 2015.

B. On December 30, 2014, the prosecutor of the Speaker’s Office of the District Public Prosecutor’s Office: (a) conspired with Defendant A, who operated an E Hospital, to establish and operate the instant hospital in collusion with Defendant B; and (b) filed a constitutional complaint against the Defendants’ charges of violating the Medical Service Act on March 30, 2015 against the foregoing suspension of indictment on the grounds that Defendant B filed a constitutional complaint against the foregoing suspension of indictment on March 30, 2015.

C. On October 12, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a disposition to collect the amount in the table of decision on collection from the Defendants (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) based on Article 84(3)1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on the ground that “The instant hospital was established in violation of Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act (the medical personnel cannot establish and operate two or more medical institutions under any pretext) and cannot be designated as an industrial accident compensation insurance-related medical institution. However, the Defendants received designation of the instant hospital as an industrial accident compensation insurance-related medical institution and received medical expenses for affected workers, and subsequently claimed and received medical expenses in the following table of unjust enrichment and after receiving payment from the Plaintiff.”

Medical expenses for decision on collection of unjust enrichment for a type of benefit 2,368,322,270 won 4,736,64,540 won (amount multiplied) and medical expenses for legacy 6,345,520 won 6,345,520 won;

D. Accordingly, on December 31, 2015, Defendant B filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition under the Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap83672, and the said court was Article 33 of the Medical Service Act on June 29, 2017.