[침사자격존재확인][공1984.5.15.(728),736]
Whether a life-sustaining license acquired in Japan at a certain time is guaranteed until now by the previous Acts and subordinate statutes;
There is no provision to recognize a life-sustaining license acquired in Japan as well, and there is no provision to recognize a life-sustaining license acquired in Korea, under the Regulations on Ethical, writtenl, and Oral Art. 10 (Ordinance No. 10, Oct. 10, 1914, Decree No. 1923, Oct. 117, 1923), Article 6 of Addenda to the former Medical Service Act (Act No. 221, Sep. 25, 1955), Article 2 (3) of Addenda to the Medical Service Act (Ordinance No. 1035, Nov. 25, 1960), Article 60 of Addenda to the former Medical Service Act (Ordinance No. 1035, Mar. 20, 1962), and Article 2 of Addenda to the current Medical Service Act (Ordinance No. 2533, Feb. 16, 1973).
Article 6 of the Addenda of the former Medical Service Act (Act No. 221 of Sep. 25, 1951), Article 2 of the Addenda of the Medical Care Act (Act No. 55 of Nov. 25, 1960), Article 3 of the Addenda of the former Medical Service Act (Act No. 1035 of Mar. 20, 1962), Article 60 of the current Medical Service Act (Act No. 2533 of Feb. 16, 1973), Article 2 of the Addenda of the current Medical Service Act
Supreme Court Decision 83Nu334 Delivered on September 13, 1983
Plaintiff
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu293 delivered on October 12, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
A person who intends to conduct an inception business (Ordinance No. 10, Oct. 25, 1914; Ordinance No. 117, Oct. 25, 1923), which was implemented at a certain time, shall file an application for a license with the Minister of General Affairs (or the Superintendent General in light of gender) and obtain a license, and if it is deemed appropriate to conduct an inception business as the applicant, he/she shall issue a inception license. Since there is no provision that recognizes a inception license acquired in Japan as it is in the Republic of Korea, there is no provision that the plaintiff recognizes the inception license acquired in Japan as it is, there is no provision that the above inception qualification license of the plaintiff acquired in Japan as the above inception, inception and oral inception, Article 6 of the former Medical Service Act (Ordinance No. 225, Sep. 25, 195; Ordinance No. 1117, Oct. 25, 1923).
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the 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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)