1. On August 12, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to recover expenses for long-term care benefits of KRW 32,141,461 to the Plaintiff on August 12, 2016.

B. The Defendant, on August 12, 2016, notified the Plaintiff of a decision to recover KRW 264,305,590 of the cost of long-term care benefits paid in excess pursuant to Article 43 of the Elderly Care Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not request reduction even during the period of violation, and that, on the basis of the relevant period’s violation of the criteria for the incentive for the improvement of rating for the relevant period: Provided, That the Defendant did not receive the incentive for the improvement of rating if the amount of

(1) As seen below, the Plaintiff’s decision to recover the violation related to D is solely disputing the part of the decision to recover the violation related to D, and for convenience, this part is only referred to as “instant disposition.” Of the above decision to recover the amount to be recovered in relation to the non-related violation related to D is KRW 32,141,461.

(Unit: 30% 30% 21,906, 4926, 576, 946, 30% 30,192,820, 500, 6,057, 845, 845, 30% 15% 30,30% 20,820,006, 610, 847, 847, 845, 30% 20, 40% 20,610, 2828, 24448, 205% 30, 15, 205% 20, 205, 30, 20, 2828, 2844, 205, 205, 305% of the total amount of additional charges to be recovered from the Service’s 30% 30% 8,114,2111,28

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, and the purport of the whole oral argument as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, shall be determined based on whether Eul actually used long-term care services provided by the institution of this case, instead of whether Eul actually resides in the institution of this case.

Article 23 (1) 2 of the Medical Treatment for the Aged Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.