1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 1, 2015, the Plaintiff reported that the establishment of “C” on the first floor of the building located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and “D” (hereinafter “instant medical care center”) on the second floor of the same building.

The Plaintiff’s mother, from around that time to February 2018, E actually operated the first floor medical care center and the instant medical care center.

B. From April 16, 2018 to April 19, 2018, a public official affiliated with the Defendant visited the instant medical care center to conduct an on-site investigation on the details of long-term care benefits provided by the Plaintiff from June 16, 2016 to February 2018.

C. On July 3, 2018, the Defendant: (a) registered as if the Plaintiff, a caregiver affiliated with the instant medical care center, worked at the first floor medical care center from October 2016 to February 2, 2018; (b) violated the criteria for placement of human resources; and (c) filed a claim for reimbursement of the amount equivalent to the cost of long-term care benefits to be reduced according to the percentage of the vacancy of the medical care center prescribed in the relevant statutes and received the payment without reducing the amount equivalent to the cost of the long-term care benefits to be reduced; and (d) notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would recover KRW 41,853,720, which is equivalent to the cost of the unfair

hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"

2) The grounds for the appeal pointing this out are as follows: (a) the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition; (b) the evidence No. 1-2; and (c) the evidence No. 8; and

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The non-existence of the ground for disposition No. 1 by the Plaintiff was serving in the first floor medical care center only when the medical care worker belonging to the first floor medical care center was off duty, and the rest of the time was serving in the medical care center of this case.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not confirm the attendance situation and the work status list properly, and calculated the F’s actual working hours in the instant medical care center under consideration.

The instant disposition is based on the F’s actual working hours, and the ratio of calculating the vacancy ratio and the cost of care benefits.