1. The part of the revocation of the claim for collection among the lawsuit in this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's request for cancellation of business suspension is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a doctor who establishes and operates “B” as a medical care institution in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant member”).

During the period from May 14, 2014 to September 30, 2011, the Defendant conducted on-site investigations during the investigation period from May 1, 2011 to September 31, 201, and from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

B. On December 18, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to suspend the business of a 93-day medical care institution to the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “previous Disposition” (hereinafter “previous Disposition”). In other words, even though the Plaintiff conducted a cosmetic-related medical examination and treatment for the cosmetic (mal improvement) subject to non-benefit in the instant Council member during the investigation period, it was deemed that the Plaintiff provided medical treatment to the patients with respect to the unknown annual tissue salt, etc., and received a total of KRW 1,151,620 by recording the examination fees, etc. in the medical records and claiming medical care benefit costs, and in relation thereto, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,151,620 as a medical care benefit cost, and charged the insurer, etc. with a total of KRW 1,913,070 (the sum of the amounts as above is 23 won different from the sum of the amounts as above, which is discarded in the course of treating the end water.) in an unjust manner.

The defendant's calculation details of the suspension period are as follows:

The period of investigation shall be 7,438,830 won 1,913,070 won 239,133 won 25.71% 93 won 25.71% of the total amount of costs of health care benefit per month, the average of the total amount of costs of health care benefit

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant under the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap50877, and the said court’s previous disposition on June 23, 2016 is deemed to be the grounds for the disposition, but, in full view of various factors, such as the size and period of the Plaintiff’s act, the degree of social criticism thereof, and the size of the Plaintiff’s profit gained from the act, the Plaintiff’s discretionary power was abused.