업무정지처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s disposition of suspension of business against the Plaintiff on September 5, 2018 shall be revoked.
1. The reasoning for this case by the court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification and addition of the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The following is added to the 3rd parallel 4th parallel 4th parallel 5th parallel 3th parallel 4th parallel 5th parallel 4th parallel 5th parallel 4th parallel 2th parallel 2th parallel 2th parallel 3th parallel 3th parallel 3th parallel 3th parallel 2th parallel 2th parallel 3th parallel 2th parallel 2th parallel 37(1)6 of the former Long-Term Care Insurance Act (hereinafter “the former Act”). Since Article 37(1)6 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged (hereinafter “Article 1”) provides that an employee’s intentional negligence shall be imposed even when it is not attributable to the head of the long-term care institution, it violates the principle of self-responsibility. According to the above Article and the proviso of Article 37-2(1) of the same Act (hereinafter “Article 2(1)”), the administrative agency may order the revocation of designation or suspension of business without considering the specific circumstances
[1] Whether the provision on the basis of disposition is unconstitutional under Article 1(1)6 of the former Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for Older Persons (Article 37(1)6 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for Older Persons) (Article 37(1)6 of the former Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for Older Persons) (Article 37(1)6 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for Older Persons) is unconstitutional or not; thus, sanctions against violations of the principle of self-responsibility are imposed on a person who is not a real offender, but a person prescribed as a person in charge under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for Older Persons, and a person who
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du8773, May 11, 2017). Article 1 of the Act provides that “A beneficiary shall be a beneficiary of a long-term care institution’s work.”