1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Circumstances and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a medical corporation that operates the “C Hospital” (hereinafter “instant hospital”) in Cheongju-si, Pluju-si.

B. On January 2015, the Defendant conducted a field investigation on whether the instant hospital’s claim for reimbursement of expenses for benefits was appropriate (the period subject to investigation: from July 2013 to May 2014, and from July 2014 to September 2014; hereinafter “instant field investigation”).

C. As a result of the instant on-site investigation, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 284,83,250 on the Plaintiff on the following grounds based on “Article 99(1) of the National Health Insurance Act” and on February 2, 2018, on the following grounds.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). Excessive collection of personal charges: In the case of providing medical care benefits under Article 41(1) of the National Health Insurance Act of KRW 189,88,837, the amount to be collected by the person himself/herself should be accurately calculated and collected pursuant to Article 44 of the same Act and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; however, in the case of collecting medical care benefits under Article 41(1) of the same Act, the amount to be collected by himself/herself shall be additionally calculated and collected; however, in addition, other than the criteria for assessing expenses for medical care materials, separate collection (185,460,00 won) other than the criteria for assessing expenses for medical care materials (1,419,35

D. Specific penalty surcharge calculation details for the instant disposition are as follows.

The fact that there is no dispute over the amount of KRW 24,398,580,580,580,60 won 6,89,225 won 0.39% 15 284,83,250 won 15,00 won 284,83,250 won 15.284,83,250 won 284,83,250 won for the period of investigation, the total amount of costs of health care benefit for the assessment (from July 2013 to May 2014, 2014 to September 2014, 14), the entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 recognized the grounds for disposition of the instant case, the part of “a separate collection other than the criteria for the imposition of drug expenses” and “an excessive collection of the principal charges related to refund of civil petitions,” among the grounds for disposition of the instant case, is recognized.