The claim of this case is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a national health insurance policyholder.

B. On May 2, 2015, at around 19:59, the Plaintiff driven an off-to-land while under the influence of alcohol with 0.126% of blood alcohol level, and entered the bus exclusive lane in the opposite lane as an opposite lane, while driving the off-to-land in the direction of the left-hand and right-hand turn from the long-distance to the long-distance to the short-distance 2 to the long-distance, from the long-distance to the long-distance.

The Plaintiff, through the bus exclusive lane of the opposite lane as seen above, 400 meters wide from the bus 160-dong 160-dong-dong apartment complex, was driving along the opposite lane, and had the bus normally driven along the above bus exclusive lane, and suffered from the injury to the passengers B and C for each two weeks.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). C.

The Plaintiff received medical care benefits by treating the injury inflicted by the instant traffic accident at the Dong National University Forest Service Hospital (hereinafter “instant insurance accident”). D.

On October 6, 2015, the Seoul Western District Court issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the instant traffic accident and for the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

E. On December 3, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to recover the amount of KRW 29,611,130 equivalent to the above medical care benefits pursuant to Articles 53 and 57 of the Health Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the instant traffic accident constitutes an act of gross negligence, i.e., the Plaintiff’s drunk driving and the median of central line, and thus, cannot provide insurance benefits to the Plaintiff.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff: (a) invadedd the central line in drinking condition; and (b) caused the instant traffic accident.

However, the above drinking driving and the central line bed.