요양급여비환수결정처분취소
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims added by this court, shall be modified as follows:
The plaintiff.
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including each of the relevant parts, but excluding the part on March 2, 200) except for the modification of the relevant parts as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation
2. Except for the modified part 2-side 12-class partitions, a parallel shall be calculated;
The defendant National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Corporation") shall be dismissed as "the defendant," and the defendant Corporation shall be dismissed as "the defendant," and the defendant Corporation shall be dismissed as "the defendant," respectively.
The Minister of Health and Welfare (hereinafter “the Minister of Health and Welfare”) of the 3rd parallel 4th parallel 4th parallel 5th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 7th parallel 7th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 7th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 7th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel
3 Under the 3rd, the 4th parallel 6th parallel 6 pages “a. the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion” are as follows.
A person shall be appointed.
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, without considering the inventory of the pharmaceutical products before the investigation period of the instant pharmacy, concluded that the Plaintiff performed an alternative preparation for the pharmaceutical products by comparing the purchase volume of the pharmaceutical products and the quantity of the medical care benefit claim for a certain period of time. In light of the aforementioned unfair determination criteria and the process of preparation, the instant restitution disposition based on the confirmation of the fact prepared by the Plaintiff without credibility
In addition, there are procedural defects that did not request the Plaintiff to provide explanatory materials or provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to vindicate.
Furthermore, April 18, 2017, the purport of the instant restitution disposition is that “the Plaintiff was confirmed to have received a disposition not to institute a prosecution on the charge of being suspected of having been cleared of without taking an administrative disposition against the Plaintiff.”