장기요양급여비용 환수 처분 등 취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details and details of the disposition;
A. On June 2, 201, the Plaintiff is operating the “B Center”, a long-term care institution under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged (hereinafter “instant center”).
B. From March 16, 2015 to March 20, 2015, Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) and the Ministry of Health and Welfare conducted a field investigation on the details of long-term care benefits from March 16, 2015 to February 20, 2015, and determined as follows.
1 8,996,630 won 1. 7,306,280 won 2,553,110 won 3,610 won 3,618,610 won 3,610 won 5,119,00 won 5,119,00 won 29,000 won 3,618,000 won 3,618,300 won 29,59,290 won 5,119,00 won 5,000 won 29,593,610 won 5,000 won 29,593,610 won
C. On July 30, 2015, Defendant Corporation notified the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff shall recover KRW 34,094,530 of the expenses for long-term care benefits paid excessively due to the Plaintiff’s unfair or erroneous claim” pursuant to Article 43 of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act.
After that, around October 2015 and around November 2015, Defendant Corporation revoked ex officio the amount exceeding “29,593,610 won in total of expenses for long-term care benefits” in the restitution decision.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant restitution disposition”), which remains after ex officio revocation, 29,593,610 won of expenses for long-term care benefits (hereinafter referred to as the “instant restitution disposition”).
On October 22, 2015, Defendant Yangyang market (hereinafter “Defendant Yangyang market”) issued a disposition of “30 days of business suspension” to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 37(3)4 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant business suspension disposition,” and “the entire restitution disposition and the instant restitution disposition,” respectively, includes the fact that there is no dispute regarding the instant disposition (based on recognition), and the number of evidence Nos. 1 and 2.