장기요양급여비용 환수결정 처분 취소
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following order for revocation shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.
On November 30, 2015, the court of first instance revoked the part where the Defendant recovered 35,550,940 won for long-term care benefits from the Plaintiff on the part of the first instance judgment that the Defendant received the total of 34,946,370 won (i.e., KRW 30,093,960 plus KRW 4,852,410) by receiving the additional placement of human resources without any reduction due to a violation of the criteria for placement of human resources. Since only the Defendant appealed against the part of the first instance judgment against the Defendant, this court shall judge only the above part of the first instance judgment.
Details of the disposition
This part of the judgment of the court is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the second to the fourth 8th 6th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th)
The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this part as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the fourth to the 12th 18th st son), except for the following cases. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The part "30 minutes" in the first place to the third place from the first place to the nineth place of the first instance judgment is advanced as follows:
During work as above, H claimed that “I worked for 4 hours and 30 minutes from 30 p.m. to 8 p.m. (The Defendant claimed that “H’s low working hours were 30 p.m. to 30 p.m., so the actual working hours of H should be deemed 4 hours excluding 30 minutes of recess.”
However, based on the provisions of Article 54 of the Labor Standards Act, it cannot be readily concluded that H had a 30-minute-hour recess during the above working hours, and the same applies to the statements in the evidence Nos. 19 and 20. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.
1) The judgment of the court of first instance is delivered.