장기요양급여비용환수결정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff’s status is as follows: “B medical care center” designated as a long-term care institution under Article 31 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged (hereinafter “B medical care center”) and “B medical care center 2” (hereinafter “second-term care center”).
The type of benefit of the institution's name (agency protection) location 1 B medical care center (C) Seoul Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Do Office D building 5 floor medical care and communal living facilities for older persons (hereinafter referred to as "joint living facilities").
(E) Short-term protection of facility benefits 2 B medical care costs (E) and at night protection 32 points (F) Seoul Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Group 42 points of facility benefits 42 points of communal living facility benefits 6 stories of D buildings (G home care short-term protection);
B. (1) From May 14, 2012 to December 21, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on-site investigation (the period subject to investigation: B care center (the period subject to investigation); (b) from April 14, 2010 to March 2012; (c) from September 2010 to March 2012; and (d) from May 201 to March 2012 (the two points (short-term protection); (b) based on this, the Defendant provided modern maritime fire insurance (hereinafter referred to as “on-site insurance”) with the Plaintiff’s opinions.
A) The Ministry of Health and Welfare’s notice No. 2009-125, hereinafter “instant notice”) regarding expenses for long-term care benefits, etc., purchased a business liability insurance policy (hereinafter “instant notice”).
After recognizing the liability insurance for long-term care benefits, on October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff claimed expenses for long-term care benefits by fraud or other improper means (hereinafter “instant disposition”) based on Article 43(1)3 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged.
(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the type of benefits for the 1B medical care center’s facility benefits from April 7, 2010 to June 29, 2010 (10% reduction). The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the type of benefits for the 12 medical care center’s facility benefits from April 7, 2010 to June 29, 2010. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the type of benefits for the 2010 medical care center’s benefits.