1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a doctor, the Plaintiff is operating “B Council member” in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant Council member”).

B. On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 7 million (hereinafter “instant summary order”) from the Seoul Central District Court due to criminal facts violating Articles 87(1)2 and 27(1) of the Medical Service Act, and the said summary order became final and conclusive as it is, as follows.

The Plaintiff, as a medical specialist of urology, was assessed to have his ability to conduct a flat surgery with the nurse C of the instant member, who had been assessed to have his ability to conduct a sexual surgery due to lack of snow and crocology surgery, while performing a sexual surgery with the nurse C of the instant member, was able to have C perform a sexual surgery with a high level of difficulty.

Therefore, around November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff, while performing the patient’s sexual intercourse surgery at the instant council member, had C of a nurse’s assistant nurse directly cut off the female’s coin and inserted a universal figure, and let C of a string with the strings. From June 5, 2015 to February 13, 2016, the Plaintiff directly got C of a 90-time coinc and anal coinction.

As such, the Plaintiff conspiredd with C to engage in unlicensed medical treatment.

C. Accordingly, on February 27, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition for the suspension of license for three months based on Article 66(1)5 and Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act, Article 4 of the Rules on Administrative Dispositions Relating to Medical Services, [Attachment] 2(a)(19) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the Medical Service Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[The facts without dispute over the basis for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The grounds for the Plaintiff’s assertion arose in the process of normalization of the hospital by accepting the instant member who was operated as a so-called “the so-called “the office of the head of the office,” and the Plaintiff, alone, prevented the operation, and C any longer.