beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion made by the plaintiff in the trial, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
"Total 21 months from October 2012 to June 2014, and total 21 months from December 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014" in Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is dismissed or added among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be deemed "total 6 months."
The first instance court's judgment "from February 2014 to May 2014" shall be "from December 2012 to October 2014."
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 48, which the Defendant added at the trial of the trial of the first instance, 13, 11, and 12, the Defendant added the following: (a) as of January 8, 2016, nine elderly sanatoriums are established; (b) there are 119 visitors; (c) it is difficult for the beneficiaries using the instant hospital to use other medical care institutions after discharge from the hospital; and (d) it is difficult to deem that there is any danger to the life or body of the beneficiaries due to the gap in the protection of the medical care in the process of the instant disposition. (b) The Plaintiff’s 76-day disposition for the suspension of the medical care center of the instant case’s assertion (hereinafter “instant 76-day disposition”), is unlawful as it deviates from mistake of facts or abuse of discretionary power. (a) The Defendant should revoke the Plaintiff’s 76-day disposition as follows.
This case’s caregiver’s duties are carried out without performing the caregiver’s duties, and accordingly, the number of caregiver’s duties at the clinic of this case’s medical care center does not reach the number of the necessary human resources under the law.