The revocation of permission for establishment of a medical corporation made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 23, 2016 shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a medical corporation established for the purpose of establishing and operating medical institutions.

B. The Plaintiff owned, as its fundamental property, the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Dae-gu and its ground building, etc. (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, the instant real estate was sold to C as an auction to exercise a security right on July 27, 2016.

C. On September 24, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking permission for establishment of the Plaintiff’s medical corporation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate at a voluntary auction, thereby extinguishing its basic property and thus violating the conditions for permission for establishment of the medical corporation.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

B. 1) Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion is procedurally unlawful, i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion that the hearing was conducted without D’s presence while not notifying D of the holding of the hearing. The instant disposition was procedurally unlawful since it was conducted without lawful procedures for the hearing. (A) Article 84 subparag. 1 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 14438, Dec. 20, 2016); and (2) Article 21(2) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that “Where an administrative agency intends to hold a hearing, it shall notify the relevant party, etc. of the title of the disposition, the grounds for the disposition, the facts of the disposition, and the legal grounds for the disposition, etc. 10 days prior to the amendment by Act No. 14438, Dec. 20, 2016.”

In full view of the provisions of Articles 28, 31, 34, and 35 of the Administrative Procedures Act, the presider of the hearing selected by the administrative agency shall preside over the hearing, whether the parties are present, the summary of their statements, and the evidence submitted.