2. On April 26, 2018, the Defendant’s collection of the emergency medical service management fees paid to the Plaintiff on April 26, 2018.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The reasoning for the court’s argument on this part is as follows: (a) except for the addition of “the instant hospital” on May 22, 2009, No. 2 of the judgment of the first instance, No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and “the instant hospital” on May 22, 2009, the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment; and (b)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination 1) The National Health Insurance Act was enacted for the purpose of contributing to the improvement of national health and the improvement of social security by providing citizens with insurance benefits for disease and injury, prevention, medical treatment and rehabilitation, childbirth death, and improvement of health (Article 1). Therefore, the legislative purpose and regulatory subject of the Act differs from other individual administrative laws, such as the Emergency Medical Service Act. Therefore, whether the provision of medical care benefits and the receipt of medical care benefits by a medical care institution, in violation of other individual administrative laws, such as the Emergency Medical Service Act, constitutes “cases where the medical care institution received insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means” as the subject of collection of unjust enrichment under Article 57(1) of the National Health Insurance Act should be determined by taking into account the legislative purpose and purpose of the Act and the difference between the subject of regulation and other individual administrative laws, and the need to collect unjust enrichment under the National Health Insurance Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2017Du59284, Nov. 28, 2019>

2.3.