1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a medical corporation that established and operated a medical care hospital, which is a medical care institution under the National Health Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant medical care institution”), in advance, as the place of in-depthness, in advance, when he/she is trained.

B. On August 4, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to recover the amount of KRW 75,676,270, which was directly used additional dues among the food expenses pursuant to Article 57 of the National Health Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff operated the instant meal service facilities without reporting the establishment and operation of the meal service facilities from January 2007 to December 2008 by the instant medical care institution, and received the food expenses of the hospitalized patients who received meals from the said meal service facilities as medical care expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The provision on food substitutions in Part 1, Part 2, Part 1, Part 1, Part 2, Part 1, Part 1, Part 1, and Part 1, Part 1, and the Rules on the Medical Care Benefits Standards for the National Health Insurance Act and the Rules on the Medical Care Benefits of the National Health Insurance Act for the purpose of providing meals to inpatients. It merely requires that food sanitation-related standards should be met. It does not require that the obligation to report meal service facilities under the Food Sanitation Act for administrative convenience regardless of the sanitary purpose should be fulfilled. The plaintiff also operated a restaurant in conformity with the facility and human resources requirements under the Food Sanitation Act, even before filing a report on the meal service facilities in the medical care facilities in this case. Thus, the disposition in this case on the ground that it did not meet the requirements for direct payment of additional dues is unlawful because it is not recognized as the grounds

B. If any.