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.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, since Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are the same as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment is written or added under paragraph (2).

(1) Article 98 (1) 1 of the National Health Insurance Act shall be applied to "Article 98 (1) 1 of the National Health Insurance Act" in Part II of the judgment of the first instance.

(2) The second sentence of the first instance judgment “National Health Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 13985, Feb. 3, 2016)” shall be added following the second sentence of the first instance judgment.

(3) Following the "Enforcement Decree of the National Health Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29002, Jun. 26, 2018)" in the 21st sentence of the first instance judgment shall be added.

2. Additional determination

A. In a criminal case involving the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff was indicted on charges of fraud and violation of the Medical Service Act, and the summary order was issued as to the remainder of the costs of medical care benefit corresponding to KRW 278,627 in total, 18,000 in total, and the Defendant was issued a non-prosecution disposition (not guilty).

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful because there is no ground for disposition.

B. 1) Determination 1) To be found guilty in a criminal case should be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and should not be sufficient to the extent that the evidence constituting the basis for conviction is superior to the opposite evidence.

Therefore, even if a non-prosecution disposition was rendered based on the fact that there was no such proof in a criminal case, the administrative judgment is not bound, and the court can recognize the facts contrary to the free evaluation by evidence.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu623, Apr. 27, 1988).