The Defendant’s disposition of suspending the qualification of herb doctor’s license issued to the Plaintiff on November 21, 2017 is revoked.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details and details of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff is a herb doctor who establishes and operates the Korea Medical Center C in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the name of the medical institution was changed to D. The name of the medical institution was changed to Korea Medical Center).

B. On April 2013, the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “the instant on-site investigation”) conducted on-site verification of the instant Institute, and requested the Defendant to conduct an on-site investigation of the instant Institute, and the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation of the instant Institute around January 2015 (hereinafter “the instant on-site investigation”).

C. On November 21, 2017, the Defendant: (a) recorded the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff provided medical treatment for certain completions who were not inside of the instant Council members, from January 2012 to December 2012; and (b) from August 2014 to October 2014 (hereinafter “the instant period”); (b) recorded that the Plaintiff provided medical treatment for certain completions who were not inside of the instant Council members; (c) filed a claim for medical care benefit costs, including medical examination fees, with the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “the instant claim for the number of days of internal Council members”); and (b) filed a claim for the suspension of qualifications under Article 2,780,686 won in total with the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “the instant claim for the suspension of qualifications”) (hereinafter “the instant oriental medical doctor’s license”) based on the former Medical Service Act’s disposition (amended by Act No. 12261, May 26, 2016; hereinafter the same).”

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was from around 2011 that the Plaintiff had herb doctor E receive treatment in the form of independent collection (so-called “shop in the shop”), and from that time, E was in exclusive charge of claiming medical expenses of the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff made a false claim for the number of days of internal origin in the instant case.