1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment, which is described in paragraph (2) below, to the assertion that the plaintiff is particularly emphasized as the ground for appeal by this court. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The portion added by this court

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Rule on the Establishment and Operation of the former Special Medical Equipment (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 339, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter “instant Rule”).

According to Article 8(1), the duties of quality control inspection, accuracy safety management, etc. are duties of a doctor or radiation engineer appointed as a manager to a medical institution, and is not duties of a video medical specialist, which is a “non-speed” human resources. Therefore, even if a medical specialist of non-speed image department, who belongs to the Plaintiff, did not normally perform the duties of quality control inspection, etc. concerning special medical equipment, this does not violate the operating personnel standards prescribed by the Rules of this case. 2) The duties of this case by division of business do not violate the operation personnel standards prescribed by the Rules of this case.

Plaintiff

Since H and J as a non-exclusive operator of the film department under its jurisdiction shared the operation of the above special medical equipment, the Plaintiff did not violate the operation personnel standards prescribed in the Rules of this case.

At least the video reading fee paid to the Plaintiff, among the video reading fee, shall be normal.