A. Defendant A’s KRW 827,017,770 and KRW 445,397,520 among them shall be from June 1, 2013, and KRW 381,620,250.

A. According to the Medical Service Act indicating the claim, a person can not establish a medical institution unless he/she has a certain qualification, and a medical person is employed by a person who is not entitled to establish a medical institution to provide medical services.

Nevertheless, from June 8, 2012 to April 2013, Defendant A lent the name of the incorporated association C (hereinafter “instant incorporated association”) to Defendant B, and had Defendant A operate the instant hospital with the trade name of the Evalescent (hereinafter “instant hospital”) in Osan-si (hereinafter “instant hospital”). From April 2013, Defendant A directly operated the instant hospital.

The Defendants, in violation of the Medical Service Act, acquired the total amount of KRW 827,017,770 from the Plaintiff as medical care benefit costs.

Therefore, Defendant A is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for tort.

(b) Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment made by deeming the relevant provisions as private investors);

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The facts of recognition are established in collusion with Defendant A, etc. by lending the name of the incorporated association of this case from June 2012 to August 2013, 2013, even though Defendant B was not a medical person at the District Court of the Republic of Korea on January 19, 2017, and the facts that Defendant B was punished for a period of two years, and the facts that were sentenced to punishment for a period of four years of suspension of execution by deceiving the Plaintiff’s total sum of 752,241,880 won from the Plaintiff from June 201 to August 2013, can be acknowledged in full view of the overall arguments in the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 3, or the facts that became final and conclusive with respect to Defendant B in the above judgment, are significant

B. Even if the relevant legal principles are not bound by the facts established in a criminal trial in a civil lawsuit, the fact-finding that has been established in the final and conclusive criminal judgment does not appear in the special circumstances where it cannot be employed.