1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In order to conduct health and medical services for improving the health of cooperative members pursuant to the Consumer Cooperatives Act, the B consumer cooperative is a person whose establishment was registered on September 18, 2014 after obtaining authorization for establishment on October 2, 2014 (hereinafter “instant cooperative”), and the Defendant is recorded as the second president of the instant cooperative from January 26, 2015 on the corporate register.

B. On December 4, 2014, the instant cooperative “B consumer cooperative D Council member” in Silung-si, Seoul, the term “B consumer cooperative D Council member” means a medical care institution, and the same month.

9. In Bupyeong-si E, the term “B consumer cooperative F Hospital” has been established and operated respectively by the medical care institution.

C. The instant cooperative requested the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service to examine the medical expenses of KRW 357,885,220 in the aggregate of KRW 30,772,370 (from February 12, 2015 to June 23, 2015) and KRW 327,112,850 in the health care benefit costs of F Hospital (from January 26, 2015 to September 15), and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 357,885,220 in accordance with the results of the review by the said Evaluation and Assessment Service.

On September 16, 2015, the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency notified the Plaintiff that “The medical care institutions established by the instant cooperative falls under the so-called office hospital that employs and operates medical personnel, and accordingly, the president, Defendant, and office president G, etc. of the instant cooperative constituted a violation of the Medical Service Act and a crime of fraud.”

Accordingly, on November 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant, etc. of the scheduled restitution of the already paid medical care benefit cost of KRW 357,885,220.

E. On May 31, 2017, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of lack of evidence in the above criminal case on the ground that “G appears to have been in exclusive charge of all the affairs concerning the establishment and operation of the instant cooperative and the medical care institution, and the Defendant was the chief director with introduction of G, etc., and was not involved in the operation thereof.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, A(1) through (3)