beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the lower court’s judgment cited in the judgment of the first instance is as follows: “Defendant” on February 5, 2014, after the judgment of the first instance was rendered, from March 6, 2014, the period during which suspension of qualification of this case was suspended upon the Plaintiff’s request.
5.5. A disposition was made to change to the end.
“Along with the addition of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes by this court is re-emphasized, all of them are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The summary of the assertion 1) The defendant found that the plaintiff had filed a false claim for medical care benefit costs as if the plaintiff had conducted a vaccination for the new fluoral disease subject to non-benefit. However, among the cases discovered by the defendant's false request, there were symptoms of diagnosis in the unique column of medical care records as of the date determined by the false request in the case of S, N,O, P, and Q, and it is apparent that M and Q had conducted a medical examination for the existing disease separately from vaccination. Furthermore, nine medical professionals, including R, were diagnosed for the existing disease, such as high blood pressure, and the six medical professionals including S, were also diagnosed for the existing disease. Thus, the part of the medical care benefits for the disease patients was conducted separately from the vaccination and claimed for a medical examination for the same portion, and thus, the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 1212, Dec. 12, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply).
(2) The Defendant’s disposition that deemed that this portion of the pertinent documents was false is unlawful. The instant disposition was unlawful. 2)