beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.07.05 2017구합84211

업무정지처분취소

Text

1. The Defendant’s business suspension of 84 days against the Plaintiff on August 10, 2017 is revoked.

2...

Reasons

. A report shall be filed with the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and the founder or manager of a medical institution shall use the radiation generator for diagnosis within three years from the date of inspection conducted by the inspection institution in accordance with inspection standards, but the person who has established or manager of a medical institution shall claim medical care benefit costs, such as physical shock, crushing, and radioactive simple image diagnosis fees, even though he/she has failed to conduct a regular inspection of radiation apparatus for diagnosis from May 2, 2013 to July 11, 2013 or has been judged inappropriate;

F. Specific calculation of the period of business suspension of the instant disposition is as follows.

1) The total amount of health care benefit costs (from April 2013 to July 7, 2013, from January 2016 to March 2016, 7) for the period of investigation conducted on the basis of unfair reduction before reduction (17,463,030 won for the period of suspension of business, 40,09,410 won 5,728,487 22.59% for the period of suspension of business, 124% for the total amount of 2,737,410 won for the instant apparatus and appliances, and 37,362,00 won for the instant period of suspension of business, 200 won for the total amount of 37,762,00 won for the instant period of suspension of business, 200 won for the unfair reduction of total amount of 30% for the period of suspension of business, 201 to 207, 360% for the foregoing period of suspension of business, 20136, 1630.7 months for the foregoing period of business.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff inspected each of the instant devices.