1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a worker of the Plaintiff Company B, maintained the eligibility as an employment provided policyholder under the National Health Insurance Act. On July 25, 2012, the Defendant was submitted a “report on the disqualification of the Plaintiff’s employment provided policyholder” by the said Company as of March 30, 2012, on the ground that the Defendant was subject to the said Company’s submission of the “report on the disqualification of the Plaintiff’s employment provided policyholder” as of March 30, 2012

B. From August 2012 to October 2013, the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff as an individually provided policyholder and notified the payment of health insurance fees as shown in attached Table 1.

(hereinafter) The imposition of the remaining insurance premiums and additional dues except for the insurance premiums paid by the Plaintiff is subject to the instant imposition.

As of November 2013, delinquent insurance premiums and arrears due to each of the instant dispositions was KRW 2,218,090 (i.e., health insurance premiums of KRW 1,931,650 (long-term care insurance premiums of KRW 126,740).

On April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant pursuant to Article 87 of the National Health Insurance Act, and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that the period for filing the objection was expired on June 4, 2015.

E. On March 21, 2016, with the approval of the Minister of Health and Welfare, the Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s deposit claim (hereinafter “instant seizure”) based on the collection right of KRW 2,390,720, total amount of delinquent insurance premiums and arrears.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 3, 4, Eul's 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that he did not lose his qualification as an employment provided policyholder, and the plaintiff sought the revocation of each of the dispositions of this case imposed on the premise that he is an employment provided policyholder and the cancellation of the seizure.

B. Determination on the claim for revocation of each of the instant dispositions 1.