1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 536,825,350 on the Plaintiff on November 20, 2017.

1. In filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 536,825,350 on November 20, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing a penalty surcharge”) and sought revocation of the disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 536,825,350 on November 24, 2017 in the form of simple consolidation. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim.

In regard to this, since only the defendant has legally appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance on the revocation of the disposition imposing the penalty surcharge of this case, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the disposition imposing the penalty surcharge of this case against the defendant

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this part is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (b) the part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., the developments leading up to the disposition of the court of first instance (p. 2, 3-5, 1); and (c) the part of the grounds for recognition (p. 5, 3-7, 12), i.e., the facts leading up to the disposition of the court of first instance (p. 5, 3-7).

3. The gist of the grounds for appeal of this case is that the grounds for imposition of the penalty surcharge of this case are recognized, and even if the amount of the penalty surcharge is calculated by applying the provision of the aggravated disposition of this case in the course of imposing the penalty surcharge of this case, the provision of the aggravated disposition of this case is not applicable, and the amount of the penalty surcharge of this case is calculated by calculating the amount of the penalty surcharge of this case as to the grounds for imposition of the penalty surcharge of this case [the previous Enforcement Decree of the National Health Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23421, Dec. 28

[Attachment V] Article 61(1) [Attachment V]

2.(a)

The above amount is the same amount as KRW 536,825,350, which actually is the amount of the penalty surcharge of this case.

Therefore, the imposition of the penalty surcharge in this case is recognized as the grounds for the disposition, and as a result, the defendant does not deviate from and abuse its discretion.