1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 12, 2014, the Oral Medical and Consumer Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as the “Musan Medical and Livelihood Cooperatives”) reported the establishment of a medical institution with respect to the instant member under Article 33(3) of the Medical Service Act to operate a clinic-level medical institution (hereinafter referred to as the “instant member”) under the name of “A medical and pharmaceutical member” in the Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

On May 14, 2014, the head of the Kuwon-gun notified the Hawon-gun of the fact that “the establishment of a medical institution under Article 33(7)3 of the Medical Service Act is not possible because it constitutes a reason for not being independent of a pharmacy established on the same floor by the instant member on the same floor and a structural and functional space.”

On May 22, 2014, the Oral Medical Credit Union filed a new report on the establishment of a medical institution with respect to the instant member to the head of Kuwon-gun on May 22, 2014, and on May 22, 2014, the head of Kuwon-gun accepted the report on the establishment of the medical institution on the Oral Medical Credit Union.

On the other hand, on May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff, who is a doctor, agreed to work as a doctor at the Oral Medical Cooperation and the instant member.

Accordingly, from May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff treated and prescribed patients from the instant member, and the Oral Medical Credit Union received medical expenses from the relevant patient.

However, on July 22, 2014, the District Public Prosecutor’s Office rendered a disposition of suspending prosecution against the Plaintiff on the grounds that “the Plaintiff did not establish a medical institution from May 12, 2014 to May 21, 2014 and did not comply with Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act.”

Accordingly, on September 16, 2014, the Defendant rendered a judgment of suspension of indictment on the Plaintiff’s act of operating medical service without establishing a medical institution in violation of Article 33(1) of the Medical Service Act. As such, Article 66(1)10 of the Medical Service Act, Article 4 of the Rules on Administrative Dispositions Concerning Medical Services and [Attachment Table] of the Rules on Administrative Dispositions Relating to Medical Services

(d)Paragraph 1, 2.2.