The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment of the court to the following, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Judgment added by this Court

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant field investigation procedure is unlawful for the following reasons. (A) In order to have an employee of the Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Corporation”) who did not have a public official status conduct an investigation, the Defendant employed the employee of the Corporation as a public official or entered into a dispatch contract with the Corporation under the Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers, but the Defendant did not undergo such procedures.

B) Even if the involvement of the employee of the Corporation as an administrative assistance, the defendant should have deliberated on the necessity of the administrative assistance by establishing an investigation plan pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Corporation should have decided on whether to provide the defendant with the defendant's request for administrative assistance, and the employee of the Corporation should be directed and supervised by the defendant, and such procedures have not been carried out even though the defendant and the Corporation have agreed on the investigation expenses. (C) In conducting the instant on-site investigation, the defendant did not follow the procedures under the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (the basic principles under Article 4 of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations, the procedures for formulating and submitting the annual administrative investigation plan under Article 6, the procedures for selecting the person subject to investigation under Article 8, the procedures for selecting the person subject to investigation under Article 8, and the procedures for investigation under Article 9). (d) Since there was no question or inspection in the course of the on-site investigation, and only the employee of the Corporation has been investigated, its substance should be subscribed