1. The Defendant’s business suspension for 85 days against the Plaintiff on August 24, 2015 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 2012, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) operated a long-term care institution designated under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged (hereinafter “Medical Care Insurance Act”) in the name of “D Medical Care Center” (hereinafter “the instant medical care institution”) in Seo-gu, Incheon from around December 2012, and died on November 11, 2014.

B. Around January 2015, the Plaintiff completed the procedure for reporting the closure of the instant medical care institution operated by the Deceased, and operated the instant medical care institution under the same trade name after obtaining a new designation as a long-term care institution under the Plaintiff’s name and filing a report on the establishment of a business registration and

C. From April 6, 2015 to February 9, 2015, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation on the details of long-term care benefits with the Health Insurance Corporation from July 2013 to February 2015, and determined that “The amount of the health care benefit was reduced if the employee’s original working hours fall short of 160 hours.” However, the Defendant reported that the water clinic E had worked for less than 160 hours a month from August 2013 to December 2014, and received the cost of health care benefits by reporting that the employee had worked for less than 160 hours a month.”

On August 24, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff based on Article 37(1)4, etc. of the Medical Care and Insurance Act on the ground that “the deceased unduly claimed medical care benefit costs in violation of the aforementioned calculation criteria from August 2013 to December 2, 2014,” etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 17 (including numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) misunderstanding of legal principles (A) The instant disposition is rendered by the deceased, who is his husband, to the medical care institution.