1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff in the trial does not differ significantly from the argument in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's assertion even if the evidence submitted in the trial was newly examined, is recognized as legitimate.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the alteration of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

C. Foods

A. The 7th page “long-term care benefits” in the 16th page is “long-term care benefits as long as not only the setting of long- and short-term goals for each beneficiary of class 5 but also the characteristics of each beneficiary are not shown, but also the implementation of a program en bloc to the beneficiary of class 5.”

(b) between Chapters 7 and 21, the following shall be added:

(3) The Plaintiff’s notice of long-term care benefits, etc. was enforced on January 1, 2016, and January and February of the same year did not fully grant the necessary time to establish a recognition activity program, and the Defendant did not prepare clear program format or guidelines. Since long-term care institutions did not have the duty to submit a program plan to the Defendant, the Plaintiff, even if the program plan formulated by the Plaintiff was somewhat insufficient, should have given the Defendant an opportunity to take corrective measures through administrative guidance, etc. without considering such circumstances, it goes against the principle of proportionality when considering the disadvantages that the Plaintiff would incur. However, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition without considering such circumstances is unlawful as it goes against the principle of proportionality. However, the notice on the criteria for the provision of long-term care benefits and the method for calculating expenses for long-term care benefits, etc. was also amended by the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 2014-97, Jun. 26, 2014.