logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.02.01 2016구합8760
환수결정처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The details and details of the disposition are as follows: (a) from July 7, 2009, the Plaintiff established and operated the “C Older Persons’ Medical Care Center” designated as a facility long-term care institution (hereinafter “instant 1 medical care institution”); and (b) C Older Persons’ Medical Care Center designated as a home care institution (hereinafter “instant 2 medical care institution”); and (c) together with the instant medical care institution (hereinafter “each of the instant medical care institutions”).

From March 14, 2016 to March 17, 2016, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation regarding long-term care benefits, etc. with respect to the instant medical care institution from May 2010 to January 2013, and from November 2015 to January 2016, the period for investigating the instant medical care institution as “from July 2012 to December 2013” and from July 2015 to January 2016.

According to the above on-site investigation, the Defendant calculated the cost of long-term care benefits and claimed the reduction of the cost of long-term care benefits in the event that an employee of a long-term care institution fails to purchase a beneficiary's injury, etc. that may arise in the course of providing long-term care benefits (hereinafter referred to as "specialized compensation liability insurance") to the Plaintiff. However, from October 2009 to August 30, 2010, the Plaintiff failed to calculate the cost of long-term care benefits for each of the medical care institutions of this case without calculating the cost of long-term care benefits for which the medical care institution did not purchase a professional liability insurance, and received the relevant cost of long-term care benefits unfairly. (ii) From June 2012 to October 2012, the Plaintiff calculated the cost of long-term care benefits and claimed for the reduction because it failed to meet the criteria for placement of human resources for care workers because it did not work as a caregiver by the medical care institution of this case from June 20 to October 2012.

arrow