1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Circumstances and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a doctor who operates the building B in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, and the third floor “C” (hereinafter “instant medical care institution”).

B. The Plaintiff claimed for the examination of medical care benefit pursuant to Article 47(1) of the National Health Insurance Act, while the Plaintiff performed the relevant claim against the winners listed in the separate sheet as of the date indicated in each of the above medical care commencing dates (hereinafter “LA358”), and claimed for the examination of medical care benefit costs pursuant to Article 47(1) of the National Health Insurance Act, but the Defendant issued a disposition to reduce or reduce the Plaintiff’s above claim costs on the date indicated in each of the above separate medical care commencing dates.

(hereinafter “each of the dispositions in this case”). The grounds for each of the dispositions in this case are “a preparation for confirmation of the details of medical treatment exceeding the standard scope of medical care” (general coordination).

The ground for rejection of the application for reexamination (type 2) - The grounds for support of the instant procedure (e.g., adaptation certificate, scope of procedure, increase of place at the time of the procedure, lighting dogs, etc.) are insufficient, and both sides and multi-op application for the passage of multi-ops may have a possibility of abuse, and it may be difficult to cover the responsible e.g., the implementation by phase cannot be recognized as the same as the decision on the examination.

- Generally, it is possible to attempt the instant procedure when it comes to be a certificate of adaptation, but it is necessary to do so at today’s location AP, AP, AP, lateral (in the case of drilling), AP, prone change of right, etc. (in the case of drilling), AP, prone change of right, etc. (in the case of drilling), AP, or Laral (in the case of drilling).

No review process for shipment can determine the appropriateness of the instant procedure.

In addition, it is not recognized that acute pain is not a certificate of adaptation of the instant procedure.

Reasons for dismissing the instant procedure - The said body tend to uniformly calculate 300% of the instant procedure to most persons (at least 98%) and part of the instant procedure.