1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 52 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act provides that "if a medical care institution receives insurance benefit costs by fraud or other improper means, it does not require the medical care institution to submit false data or actively conceal the fact in order to receive the medical care benefit cost, but includes all the act of claiming and receiving the benefit cost, regardless of the cost which cannot be paid as the medical care benefit cost under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Therefore, even if the medical care benefit cost is paid using the medical care benefit equipment that failed to fulfill its obligation to report, inspect and measure, it constitutes "the

Article 39(2) of the National Health Insurance Act; Article 5(1) and (2) of the Regulations on the Standards for Medical Care Benefits; Article 5(2) of the National Health Insurance Act provides that the appropriate standards for medical care benefit equipment established and publicly notified by the Minister of Health and Welfare on November 20, 202 (Notice of the Ministry of Health and Welfare) shall be used when a medical care institution uses radiation generators for diagnosis pursuant to Article 32-2(1) of the Medical Service Act and Article 3 of the Rules on the Safety Control of Radiation Generating Devices; Article 32-2(2) of the Medical Service Act and Article 4 of the Rules on the Safety Control of Radiation Generating for Diagnosis shall not be used for any equipment determined inappropriate as a result of the examination (Article 3(2)); Article 12(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the National Health Insurance Act provides that the report or examination of the current status of the equipment (this case’s equipment also includes any notification of medical care benefit equipment to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, which cannot be reported after the report or examination.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

The court below determined that the plaintiff used the medical care benefit equipment of this case for the diagnosis of the patient without receiving a report or inspection in advance under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, which led to the determination that it is appropriate as a result of the inspection of the medical care benefit equipment of this case, but could have a serious impact on the health and life of the patient who failed to undergo an appropriate diagnosis if it was an inferior product, and that the diagnosis using the medical care benefit equipment of this case, which was not reported or inspected under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, is illegal, and thus it is not possible to claim it as the medical care benefit cost even if it was actually spent, so long as the plaintiff could not claim it as the medical care benefit cost, the plaintiff's report of the medical care benefit equipment of this case was made to the Mayor of Jeju who is the competent market until the day before the completion of the report was made. The above measures of the court below are proper, and there is no violation of law in proportion to the principle of excessive

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4

The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no awareness of the duty to report or inspect the medical care benefit equipment of this case, and whether the provision regarding the duty to submit data related to the inspection of Article 2 of the Addenda to the Standard for the Appropriateness of Medical Care Benefit Equipment is applied, and it is erroneous for the court of final appeal or the court below’s fact-finding, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for final appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)