1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are those who operate a long-term care institution under the name of “D Medical Care Center” in Youngcheon-si, Youngcheon-si (hereinafter “instant medical care center”).

B. On May 30, 2018, the Defendant: (a) to the Plaintiffs on May 30, 2018; and (b) to the employees of the instant medical care center, Article 37(1)6 of

A disposition for a period of three months of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was made on the ground that the recipient was abandoned under the protection and supervision of the recipient, or that the recipient was neglected to provide basic protection and treatment, including food, clothing and shelter.

C. Although the Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims on July 30, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The plaintiffs or employees of the medical care center of this case do not abuse or neglect the inmates, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts regarding the disposition of this case. 2) The plaintiffs violated relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or did not have any record of being subject to administrative disposition other than the medical care center of this case, due to the disposition of this case, the elderly inmates' unstable situations where they should move to other medical care institutions, and the plaintiffs should discontinue the medical care center of this case due to the impossibility of repayment of loans, and the employees are also on the job. In light of the above, the disposition of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority.

B. In full view of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 7 of the judgment as to the existence of the grounds for disposition 1, the medical care center’s face, i.e., the inmate of the instant medical care center, and the bones was damaged by 10 attention.