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 June 30, 200, the Plaintiff obtained a license for emergency patient transport service from the Defendant and engaged in emergency patient transport service.

B. On November 9, 200, the Plaintiff imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 990,00 on behalf of an emergency medical technician, KRW 90,00 on April 3, 2001, penalty surcharge of KRW 90,000 on behalf of an emergency medical technician for his/her non-compliance with the corrective order on July 23, 2003, instead of a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,80,000 on the ground of non-compliance with the corrective order on the ground of non-compliance with the business on the ground of non-compliance with the business, instead of seven days of the business suspension on the ground of non-compliance with the emergency medical technician on the ground of non-compliance with the emergency medical technician on November 11, 200, the Plaintiff imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 420,00,00 on the ground of the suspension of business, instead of seven days of the business suspension on the ground of non-compliance with the emergency medical technician on July 29, 2011.

C. On September 21, 2012, the Defendant, around December 18, 2010, collected transport treatment fees from an emergency patient A with respect to the transport of emergency patients, and violated Article 24 of the former Emergency Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 10219, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “former Emergency Medical Service Act”). On the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 51 of the former Emergency Medical Service Act because the Plaintiff failed to install facilities, etc. to be equipped by the emergency patient transport service provider, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on January 3, 2013 (from January 1, 2013 to February 2, 2013) pursuant to Article 55(2)1 and 3 of the former Emergency Medical Service Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The former Emergency Medical Service Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act asserting that first aid charges may be collected during the transfer to a transport treatment.