1. The Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 536,825,350 on the Plaintiff on November 20, 2017, and the penalty surcharge of KRW 536,825,350 on the Plaintiff, and on November 24, 2017.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the records, including: (a) an in-house care institution’s name; (b) an in-house care institution’s name; (c) an in-house care institution’s name; (d) an in-house care center’s name; (d) an in-house care institution’s number; (e) an in-house care institution’s number; (e) an in-house care institution’s number; and (e) an in-house care institution’s number; and (e) an in-house care institution’s number; (e) an in-house care institution’s number; (e) an in-house care benefit list; and (e) an in-house care benefit rate; and (e) an in-house care benefit rate: (g) an in-house care institution’s number; and (g) an in-house care benefit rate: (g) an in-house care institution’s number; and (g) an in-house care benefit rate of at least 20, 10-10.

Even if a medical care institution receives all medical records related to medical treatment, all in-patients and outpatients shall be deemed to continue to provide medical treatment. In such cases, the C convalescent (I, Representative A) shall not apply to the calculation method applicable to a new establishment institution (Cvalescent (J, representative D, establishment period: from February 16, 2009 to September 1, 2010).

D. In addition, based on Article 28(1)1 of the Medical Care Assistance Act, the Defendant’s provision of medical benefits to the Plaintiff on November 24, 2017, as follows, 164 days (from April 16, 2018 to September 26, 2018) for the instant hospital.