[1] The method of relief by a medical care institution in a case where a medical care institution refuses payment as a result of the examination on the claim for expenses for the protection of a medical care institution under the Medical Care Act

[2] The measures to be taken by the court of the lawsuit where a case to be brought as an administrative litigation without an intention or gross negligence is mistakenly brought into a civil lawsuit and the court of the lawsuit has jurisdiction over the administrative litigation at the same time

[1] In light of Articles 1, 4, 6, 11, and 21 of the former Medical Care Act (amended by Act No. 4974 of Aug. 4, 1995), and Articles 17(1) and (2), 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15279 of Feb. 19, 197), and Articles 28 and 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 55 of Sept. 1, 1997), the purpose of the medical care under Article 1, 4, 6, 11, and 21 of the same Act, and Articles 17(1), (2), and 21 of the same Act, and Articles 28, and 29 of the same Act, the medical care institution’s right to request the payment of medical expenses to the care institution is not a private right arising from legal relations such as contract, but a right to request the payment of abstract medical institution.

[2] Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a transfer to a competent court shall be made by applying Article 31(1) of the Civil Procedure Act in a case where an administrative litigation has been filed in a court where there is no intention or gross negligence of the plaintiff, and it is desirable for the plaintiff to transfer it to a competent court rather than to dismiss a lawsuit for violation of jurisdiction as unlawful. Thus, in a case where the plaintiff files a lawsuit for a civil litigation without intention or gross negligence, which is to be filed as an administrative litigation, and the court of the lawsuit has jurisdiction over the administrative litigation, if the lawsuit has jurisdiction over the administrative litigation at the same time, the court of the lawsuit must deliberate and determine it as an administrative litigation, such as where the procedure and period of filing the lawsuit are over, or there is no disposition, which is the subject of the administrative litigation, even if it is filed by an administrative litigation, so long as it is improper even if it is filed by an administrative litigation, it is not illegal.

[1] Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 1, 4, 6, 11, and 21 of the former Medical Care Act (amended by Act No. 4974 of Aug. 4, 1995); Articles 17(1), 17(2), and 21 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Medical Care Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15279 of Feb. 19, 197); Articles 28 and 29 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Care Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 55 of Sept. 1, 1997); Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 31(1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 7 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Care Act; Article 31(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da31235 delivered on February 15, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 768 delivered on March 22, 198) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da28960 delivered on May 30, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 1997)

Jeonbuk University Hospital (Law Firm Honam General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Sung-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonju City

Gwangju High Court Decision 97Na798 delivered on August 21, 1997

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

According to the provisions of Articles 1, 4, 6, 11, and 21 of the former Medical Care Act (amended by Act No. 4974 of Aug. 4, 1995, below), Articles 17(1) and (2), 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15279 of Feb. 19, 197), Articles 28 and 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, medical care shall be provided to those who have no ability to maintain their lives or have difficulty in living and are determined to be eligible for livelihood under the Life Protection Act, and all or part of the expenses required therefor (the following expenses for protection shall be borne by the government subsidy, the medical care fund shall be provided to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu for the purpose of improving public health care and the operation of the fund shall be provided to the Special Metropolitan City Mayor/Do governor, who shall, without delay, provide the financial care to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu for the purpose of improving the public health care and operation of the fund.

In light of the purpose of such medical care, procedures for the selection of persons eligible for medical care, fund nature and method of creation and operation, contents and nature of the examination and decision of the protection institution, procedures for the protection institution’s request for payment of medical expenses to the protection institution is not a judicial right arising from legal relations such as a contract, but a right under public law which is specifically recognized by law and policy. The specific claim for payment of medical expenses is not a claim for payment of legal expenses, but a specific claim is created only through the examination and decision of the protection institution. Thus, even if the protection institution refuses the payment of medical expenses as a result of the examination, if the protection institution refuses the payment of the expenses as a result of the examination, it should be relieved by filing an appeal suit seeking the revocation of the decision to refuse payment (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1509, Mar. 22, 198).

In addition, Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the transfer of a case to a competent court where an administrative litigation is filed without the plaintiff's intention or gross negligence shall be made by applying Article 31 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act in a case where the administrative litigation is filed in a court where the court at a different level without any other intention or gross negligence, and it is desirable in terms of the relief of the party's rights or the economy of litigation to bring a case to be filed as an administrative litigation without any intention or gross negligence. Thus, in a case where the plaintiff files a lawsuit as a civil litigation without any intention or gross negligence, if the court at the same time has jurisdiction over the administrative litigation, it is obvious that the litigation requirements are satisfied as an administrative litigation, such as where the procedure and period of filing the lawsuit are over, or where there is no disposition subject to the administrative litigation, etc., even if it is filed as an administrative litigation, it shall be deliberated and determined as the first court by having the plaintiff make a change in the lawsuit by an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da31235097, Feb. 15, 997

In accordance with the records, the head of the Jeonju-si rendered a disposition of refusal to pay medical expenses to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on September 29 of the same month, and the head of the Jeonsan-si rendered a ruling of dismissal to the effect that the administrative appeal was dismissed on September 29 of the same year, and the court below held jurisdiction over the appeal litigation as to this case. Meanwhile, the court below clearly made it clear from the perspective of the party's remedy for rights or the economy of litigation that the court below should have deliberated and judged the case as the first court for the first instance.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that judged the claim for the medical expenses of this case raised as a civil procedure is legitimate, and the decision of the court below is erroneous.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)