1. On February 27, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition to suspend the qualification of herb doctors for one month against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an oriental medical doctor running from around 1986 to 1986 the “Chovawon” (hereinafter “the instant oriental medical doctor”).

B. On March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment on the suspected violation of the Medical Service Act, as follows, by the prosecutor of the branch office of the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office.

1) On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 7,800 out of the total amount of medical expenses for patients D who received the instant medical treatment from Korea Medical Center (hereinafter “Korea Medical Center”) under the name of 26,290 won, but at the rate of KRW 6,500,000, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,300,000 to the patient who received the treatment at a “local medical institution for profit-making purposes” and discounted the patient’s charges. 2) On August 29, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 9,400 from E who received the treatment at the place under the preceding paragraph, under the name of 33,070, out of the total amount of medical expenses for patients E who received the treatment, but at the rate of KRW 6,150,000,000, paid KRW 3,2500 to the medical institution for profit-making purposes.

C. On February 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) based on the grounds for the disposition of each of the above facts; (b) based on Articles 27(3) and 66(1)10 of the Medical Service Act; (c) Article 4 [Attachment] of the Rules on Administrative Measures Concerning Medical Services; and (d) 1 of the Administrative Disposition Standards (Health and Welfare No. 283, Jan. 5, 2015)

(d) 1 and 2;

A. Pursuant to 20), one month of the suspension of a herb doctor’s license (from April 29, 2017 to May 28, 2017) was imposed (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(ii) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The non-existence of the Plaintiff’s grounds for disposition 1 was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been admitted to D and E or other hospital introduction in the course of treatment, and the Plaintiff did not arbitrarily grant a discount to the said patient, and did not speak the said patient of the said discount.