In May 2, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of suspending qualification for doctor’s license issued to the Plaintiff is revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an intention to establish and operate a Council Member C in Yeongdeungpo-si, Youngcheon-si (hereinafter “instant Council Member”).

B. On May 2, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition suspending the qualification of two-month medical license pursuant to Articles 66(1)9 and 23-2(1) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 13658, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same), on the ground that “the Plaintiff received KRW 3 million from UPPP D for the purpose of promoting the sale of medicines” to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Meanwhile, when the instant lawsuit was brought, the Defendant changed the reason for the instant disposition to “the Plaintiff received KRW 1.2 million from the Young Medicine Business Operator D for the purpose of promoting the sale of medicines between September 2012 and December 2012.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The judicial review of the court on discretionary action is to examine only whether the pertinent act was committed based on mistake of facts, violation of the principle of proportionality, or violation of the purpose of the pertinent act or the wrongful motive, etc. However, if the court’s result recognizes that the act of discretion by the administrative agency was based on mistake of facts, etc., it is an abuse of discretion and shall not be revoked as it is illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du2970, Jul. 27, 2001) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du2970, Jul. 27, 2001).