The imposition of penalty surcharges imposed on the Plaintiff on September 21, 2017 and September 27, 2017 shall be revoked in entirety.

The costs of lawsuit.

Details and details of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff is an oriental medical doctor who establishes and operates a convalescent hospital C (hereinafter “instant convalescent hospital”) in Daegu-gu B.

B. On September 21, 2017, the Defendant calculated a separate compensation scheme for the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) under the separate compensation scheme for securing necessary human resources; (b) where the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of the separate compensation scheme under the provision of securing the necessary human resources; (c) provided that at least four full-time researchers work full-time and at least one full-time worker among the medical affairs recorder, radiation recorder, clinical pathology, physical clinic, and social workers, at least four types of work; (d) in the instant case of clinical pathology D, the Plaintiff was subject to a separate disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge under Article 28 of the former National Health Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 1306, Mar. 17, 2015; (e) from March 16, 2015 to April 19, 2016; and (e) provided that the instant intermediate care hospital was subject to a separate compensation scheme under Article 381 of the former Act (amended by Act No. 13729, Apr. 16, 2019). 207, 2019).

C. On September 27, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 23,977,380 on the ground that the Plaintiff received the total sum of KRW 7,992,460 for the first quarter of March 4, 2015 and the second quarter of April 4, 2015 as medical care costs, in lieu of the disposition of suspension of business of an institution providing medical care, pursuant to Articles 29(1) and 28(1)1 of the Medical Care Assistance Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition,” along with the disposition of penalty surcharge in lieu of the disposition of suspension of business of a medical care institution (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), the fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence No. 1-4,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

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

B. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the grounds for disposition is from April 2015 to September 2015.