1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a sanatorium that provides facility benefits under the trade name, “Simberfri,” “Simjin-si, Chungcheongnam-do,” and a facility that provides home care benefits under the trade name, “Simberfri, night protection center (hereinafter “instant home care center”) which is the instant home care institution, and combined with the instant home care facility and the instant home care institution.”

The number of persons admitted to each assistant nurse on March 2014, 2014, 19.2, 19.2, 19.3, 19.7, 19.9, 192, 193, 197, 197, 199, and 10, 10, and 10, respectively.

B. However, the Defendant and the Jinjin market revealed that the investigation period from September 1, 2014 to June 4 of the same month conducted on-site investigations with respect to the instant medical care institution from January 2014 to the instant medical care institution, and that one of the assistant nurses of the instant medical care institution (hereinafter “instant concurrent employees”) worked as a concurrent employee in the instant medical care institution outside of the instant medical care institution.

The number of persons admitted to each assistant nurse of the sanatorium of this case calculated in the state other than the two positions of this case shall be as follows.

Although a nursing assistant A concurrently served as an assistant in the instant home organization, which is an annex to the instant home organization, a nursing assistant A was subject to additional placement of nursing staff from March 2014 to June 201 by filing a report on human resources at the instant home organization, the instant home organization was subject to additional placement of nursing staff from March 2014.

Accordingly, on October 31, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the restitution decision of KRW 12,149,160 of the expenses for long-term care benefits in relation to the instant sanatoriums for the following reasons.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant restitution disposition”) D.

Then, on January 31, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the instant disposition against the Defendant.