1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the following 2. The reasons for this case are as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Article 85(1) and (2) of the former National Health Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201) provides that “The criteria for suspension of business and imposition of penalty surcharges under [Attachment 5] of Article 61(1) [Attachment 5] of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Health Insurance Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 17476, Dec. 31, 2001) shall be the legal order, but the standard for suspension of business and imposition of penalty surcharges shall be the same type of violation, in light of the content and purport of the delegation provision of the mother Act, the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution, and the principle of equality, even if such violation is committed, the reasonable period of suspension of business and the amount of penalty surcharges shall be determined depending on the individual circumstances punished by other Acts due to such violation, such as the personal situation of the offender, and the size of illegal gains obtained by such violation.” The determination of whether the act of disposal and imposition was made objectively beyond the scope of the discretionary authority shall be made objectively 20.