1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,870,04,300 as well as 5% per annum from February 26, 2011 to July 19, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Although the Defendant was not entitled to establish a medical institution, the Defendant, as an incorporated association, lent the name of B’s government branch from January 5, 2009 to February 1, 201, established and operated “D in-house Council members” (hereinafter “instant Council members”) in the Gu Government-si C building, invested in the facilities and expenses necessary for the establishment of the instant Council members and brought about the proceeds therefrom.

B. The Defendant, on November 22, 2012, committed a violation of the Medical Service Act by establishing a medical institution even though the Defendant was not a person capable of establishing a medical institution under the jurisdiction of the District Court Decision 2010 High Court Decision 201Da1197 (Separation).

The conviction was sentenced to a fine of KRW 12 million for a violation of the Medical Service Act with respect to the same criminal facts as stated in the claim, and the conviction was finalized on June 28, 2013 through the appellate court (Seoul District Court Decision 2012No2407, which accepted the Defendant’s appeal of unfair sentencing and sentenced a fine of KRW 8 million) and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do502).

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,870,04,300 (=1,408,64,960 +1,397,506,910 +63,852,430) of the medical care benefit costs to the instant member while the Defendant opened and operated the instant member. On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the decision to recover the above medical care benefit costs under Article 57 of the National Health Insurance Act on the ground that the medical institution was established in violation of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, and at the same time, notified the Defendant of the decision to recover the above medical care benefit costs and the Defendant filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment under Articles 741 and 750 of the Civil Act.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The parties asserted that the Defendant committed a violation of the Medical Service Act, including: (a) the Plaintiff’s establishment of the instant member of the instant government branch under the name of the Plaintiff’s government branch without being entitled to establish a medical institution; and (b) the Plaintiff’s establishment of the instant member from January 5, 2009 to February 1, 2011.

2.2