1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 2010, the Plaintiff operated a long-term care institution called “C” in the form of a medical care and communal living home for the aged in the Guri-si from March 2010. From March 2013, the Plaintiff has additionally established and operated a long-term care institution called “D” at the same place (each of the above medical care institutions collectively referred to as “each of the instant medical care institutions”).

From March 16, 2015, the defendant

3. From May 22, 2015, each of the dispositions of this case, which ordered the Plaintiff to suspend its business for the reasons as indicated below, 50 days (C) and 181 days (D) after conducting an on-site investigation with respect to each of the instant medical care institutions for four days until 19.

The details of disposition of the relevant provision on the type of benefit for the representative of the agency C by fraud or other improper means; 177,463,020 won in total for expenses for benefits - the aggregate amount for benefits: 7,711,680 won in total: 7,711,680 won in average average: 514,112 won in average: 4.34% in total for expenses for benefits - the total amount of expenses for benefits for the elderly welfare of the Plaintiff for 50 days business suspension under Article 37(1)4 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged of 4.34% in total - the amount of expenses for benefits for the elderly welfare of the Plaintiff for 98,951,890 - the unjust amount: 42,481,470 won in average - the monthly average amount - 3,861,952 won in total: 42.93% in total

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the appeal was dismissed on October 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted 1, while operating each of the medical care institutions of this case, only claimed and received expenses in conformity with the criteria for placement of human resources prescribed by statutes, and did not claim for expenses for benefits by fraud or other improper means.

Unlike the medical care benefits actually provided, there is a part that can be seen as claiming the cost of benefits.