The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an intention to establish and operate C Council Members in Gyeyang-gu Incheon (hereinafter “instant Council Members”) from September 1, 2011 to May 2, 2016.

B. On September 2014, the Defendant: (a) specified the period subject to investigation as “from September 1, 201 to June 6, 2012; (b) from June 2014 to August 2014 (hereinafter “the period subject to investigation of the instant case”); (c) conducted an on-site investigation on the instant member’s medical benefits, etc. (hereinafter “instant on-site investigation”); and (d) through the instant on-site investigation, the Plaintiff confirmed that the instant member was entitled to non-benefit benefits under the National Health Insurance Act from September 1, 201 to June 30, 2012 by claiming the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “the instant on-site investigation”). However, even if the Plaintiff received medical expenses from the winners, such as removal, non-only treatment, and rashers for skining, etc., and claimed for the payment of medical benefits benefits by stating the name of injury and injury on the basis of the electronic medical records, etc.

C. On January 3, 2017, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 3 million on the ground that the instant false claim constitutes a crime of fraud against the National Health Insurance Corporation under the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2015, and the said summary order became final and conclusive on the ground that the instant false claim constitutes fraud against the National Health Insurance Corporation.

On June 14, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspending qualification for a 7-month doctor’s license based on Article 66(1)7 of the Medical Service Act on the ground of the instant false claim to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the items of Articles 1, 2, 4, and 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the instant on-site investigation cannot be said to be the accurate investigation based on the confirmation document of partial patients, and the Defendant is the subject of the instant on-site investigation.