[2] Whether Article 61 [Attachment 5] of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Health Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Jan. 1, 201) is invalid beyond the scope

Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms or not shall be determined by comparing and comparing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantage suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for the disposition, the public interest purpose to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and the relevant circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1083, Dec. 12, 2003, etc.).

In addition, Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Health Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17476 of Dec. 31, 2001) provides that an amount equivalent to four times the total amount of penalty shall be imposed if the period of suspension of business is not more than 50 days based on the imposition of penalty surcharge, and five times the total amount of penalty surcharge shall be imposed if the period of suspension of business exceeds 50 days. This provision provides that an amount equivalent to five times the amount of penalty surcharge shall be imposed and collected by the Minister of Health and Welfare in lieu of the suspension of business under Article 85(2) of the National Health Insurance Act as a penalty surcharge in lieu of the disposition of suspension of business under Article 85(2) and the latter part of the same provision provides that "the amount of penalty surcharge under the category and degree of the offense subject to the imposition of penalty surcharge in this case and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." This provision provides that the amount of penalty surcharge shall be determined separately by each average monthly unfair amount of penalty surcharge per 50 days or more than 50 days, and the same provision shall be imposed on different principles and scope of law.

The court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted by the court below, as to the disposition imposing the penalty surcharge of this case of this case of 27,541,260 won on the ground that the plaintiff, while operating the (name omitted), was designated as a pilot project medical care institution at the request of the plaintiff, he did not suspend the business and did not deviate from or abuse of discretion to impose the penalty surcharge of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of 1 March 1, 2001 to August 31, 201, by conducting a white surgery of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of 27,541,260 won in comparison with the amount of medical care benefit under each act of each act of this case of this case of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, relevant statutes and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to deviation from discretion as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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 Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)