보험급여비용환수처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is as follows: (a) adding “in-depth investigation” to “in-depth investigation” (hereinafter “in-depth investigation of this case”) following the second 12-party 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) adding a judgment on the assertion that the Plaintiff added or stressed at the trial of the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition to paragraph (2) below, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. According to Article 17 of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations, the head of the administrative agency who intends to conduct the instant on-site investigation shall give written advance notice to the person subject to investigation seven days prior to the commencement of the investigation, pursuant to the summary of the allegation that the prior notice procedure is unlawful, and the head of the administrative agency who intends to conduct the administrative investigation. The Defendant did not give such prior notice to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant on-site investigation. Since the illegality of such on-site investigation is significant and apparent, the instant disposition is also unlawful. Accordingly, the main text of Article 17(1) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations provides that “The head of the administrative agency who intends to conduct the administrative investigation shall notify the person subject to the investigation of the written request for appearance, the written request for report, the request for submission of materials, and the on-site investigation (hereinafter “written request for attendance, etc.”) by seven days prior to the commencement of the investigation.” The proviso of the proviso provides that “Where it is deemed that the purpose of the administrative investigation cannot be achieved due to destruction of evidence,
The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of a written request for appearance, etc. seven days prior to the commencement of the investigation of the instant case.