요양급여비용환수처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The circumstances leading up to the instant disposition and the reasons for the instant disposition are the legitimacy of the instant disposition based on the grounds for the previous disposition, and the reasons for the instant judgment is different from four and five pages of the judgment of the first instance
Except for the dismissal of a claim as follows, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
C. Thus, the defendant's previous disposition that the plaintiff was unfairly paid medical care benefit after being employed by P, a non-medical person who is unable to establish a medical institution, and then received medical care benefit.
2. The further determination of this Court
A. In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition on permission of additional grounds for disposition, the agency may add or change other grounds only to the extent that the grounds for the original disposition are recognized as identical to the basic factual relations. The existence of the basic factual relations here is determined based on whether the relevant basic social factual relations are identical in the basic point of view, based on the specific facts before the grounds for disposition are legally assessed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du15586, Nov. 26, 2009). In this case, the Defendant is within the previous disposition that the Plaintiff, a non-medical person, who is unable to establish a medical institution, was employed by the Plaintiff, and received unfairly medical care benefits after providing medical services. However, even if the Plaintiff was not employed by P, even if it was not explicitly employed by the Plaintiff, H, an oriental medical doctor, is not entitled to establish the instant clinic, which is an unqualified hospital, and therefore, claims that the Plaintiff was unfairly receiving medical care benefits after being employed by the Plaintiff.
All of the above reasons are employed by a person who is not entitled to establish a council member of this case from November 8, 2005 to September 1, 2006.