1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff medical corporation A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) was established on August 5, 2014 and changed the name of the E Hospital in Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu (former Fvalescent E Hospital was changed to the Fvalescent Hospital on December 29, 2015; hereinafter “Fvalescent”) on October 6, 2014.

In addition, the plaintiff B is the director with the representative authority of the plaintiff A and the plaintiff C is the husband of the plaintiff B.

B. On August 9, 2017, the head of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office notified the Defendant of the results of the investigation of the facts charged in violation of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, on August 2, 2017, the following facts: “Plaintiff B, C, etc. did not act in collusion with the intent of opening a medical institution, but did not intend to actually establish the medical institution, and Plaintiff B and C established the medical institution.”

C. Accordingly, on November 1, 2017, pursuant to Article 57 of the National Health Insurance Act, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that “F convalescent was paid during the period of establishment (from October 6, 2014 to September 5, 2017) for the following reasons: (a) medical care benefit cost of 3,918,624,750 [from October 6, 2014 to September 5, 2017] [1,357,161,380 (the medical care benefit cost paid from October 6, 2014 to December 29, 2015, which was the E Hospital) 2,561,463,370 (the medical care benefit cost paid from October 6, 2014 to December 29, 2015, which was the F convalescent hospital)” (hereinafter “determination on restitution”).

On the other hand, on March 14, 2018, the Defendant notified the Fvalescent Hospital of the decision to withhold payment of the medical care benefit cost (hereinafter “decision to withhold payment”) pursuant to Article 47-2 of the National Health Insurance Act with respect to the Fvalescent Hospital on the grounds that the Plaintiffs violated the foregoing, and notified the Fvalescent Hospital of the decision to withhold payment (hereinafter “decision to withhold payment”); hereinafter “decision to withhold refund”) and “decision to withhold payment” (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4.