장기요양급여비용 환수처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 27, 2003, the Plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of carrying out business activities for the establishment, operation, etc. of social welfare facilities under the Social Welfare Services Act, and operated a long-term care institution, which is a sanatorium for older persons (hereinafter “instant medical care center”), from September 30, 2013 to Jeju.
B. On May 15, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision to recover the amount from the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 43 of the former Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged (amended by Act No. 13647, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same) on the following grounds: (a) even though the number of caregivers of the instant medical care center was smaller than the number of caregivers required to be mandatorily placed in April, 2014, the Defendant claimed for expenses for long-term care benefits without reducing the amount due to the violation of the criteria for placement of human resources; and (b) thus, (c) was unfairly paid KRW 19,68,600.
(2) In the instant case, the instant medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care center’s medical care
(hereinafter referred to as 'the ground for the second disposition') is the case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 concluded a labor contract with D on July 2, 2014, and D on July 2, 2014.