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 person who has served as a doctor in the “C Hospital”, etc. located in the Youngdo-gu Busan Metropolitan City.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 2,800,000, around April 2010, from D, an employee of a business entity selling medical appliances in the above C Hospital’s dental treatment room, and KRW 1,500,000, around October 18, 2010, respectively.

C. On September 4, 2014, the Defendant acquired an economic benefit of KRW 4,300,000 in total from a medical device company to October 18, 2010, in relation to the supply of medical equipment, such as fashion, scrap, etc. necessary for spine alcohol, and this constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received money or goods unfairly in relation to his/her duties.” Article 66(1)1 of the former Medical Service Act, Article 32(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and [Attachment] standards for administrative disposition on the Plaintiff

2. Individual standards:

A. Based on the “35”, the Plaintiff’s disposition of suspending the Plaintiff’s license for driving for two months from February 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A. [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 66(1)1 of the Medical Service Act and Article 32(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act provides that suspension of license may be imposed in cases where a medical practitioner severely damages the dignity of a medical person by providing “an act of receiving money or goods unfairly in relation to his/her duties, such as the selection of a major,” by asserting that a disposition does not constitute an act of receiving money or goods unfairly in relation to his/her duties.”

However, at the time of receiving a total of KRW 4,300,000 from D, there was no illegal solicitation from the medical service provider that D had worked.

D arbitrarily paid the above money in order to subsidize the expenses of the C Hospital employees.

The plaintiff.