1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On June 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) prepared a false medical record with which the Plaintiff, who is a medical doctor, did not examine C while working for the mental hospital B on March 5, 2012; and (b) issued a prescription of 120 Apex 120 of the Apex containing narcotics, etc., for the purpose of nurse C to the Plaintiff on the ground that “Apex 120 of the Apex 120, which contains narcotics, etc., for nurse at the same hospital” (hereinafter “former Medical Service Act”); and (c) based on Articles 17(1), 22, and 66(1)3, and 10 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 11748, Apr. 5, 2013; hereinafter “former Medical Service Act”), issued a previous disposition of suspension of qualification for one month and seven days (one month from January 1, 2017 to February 7, 2017).”

On July 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a notification on July 29, 2016 to the effect that “The statute of limitations has lapsed as of the time of administrative disposition ( July 31, 2016) from the date when the cause of violation of the Medical Service Act occurred pursuant to the provisions of the Medical Service Act newly established (amended by May 29, 2016)” (hereinafter “instant notification”) and that “the statute of limitations has lapsed without taking administrative disposition pursuant to Article 66(6) of the Medical Service Act.”

On August 16, 2016, the Defendant again notified the Plaintiff of the “as a result of the review of relevant documents, this case’s previous dispositions revoked the said notification on the ground that it does not fall under Article 66(6) of the Medical Service Act, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the previous dispositions were not changed (hereinafter “instant notice 2”).

On December 27, 2016, the Defendant, on December 27, 2016, stated that “the previous disposition is revoked ex officio in order to clarify the legal relationship related to the first notice that was made by mistake after the previous disposition and the second notice that revoked it,” and made a disposition the same as the previous disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5 and 8, and the purport of the entire argument is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

The plaintiff's intent to argue as to whether the grounds for disposition are recognized.