logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.08.18 2016구합51375
피부양자자격취득거부처분취소청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 1, 201, while acquiring and maintaining the eligibility of a dependent of an employment provided policyholder B, who is an employment provided policyholder of the National Health Insurance, the Plaintiff becomes disqualified as a result of failing to meet the support requirements, and became an individually provided policyholder pursuant to Article 8(1)2 of the National Health Insurance Act.

B. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a report on qualification as a dependent to B to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not accept the said application on the ground that “the total property tax base of the land and building owned by the Plaintiff exceeds KRW 900 million and does not meet the requirements for support under Article 2(1)1 and attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Health Insurance Act.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection against the Defendant on November 20, 2015, but the Defendant dismissed it on December 22, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff’s “instant real estate” in total of the land and buildings on the Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun, and D’s land and buildings on its ground.

Although purchasing and operating a tourist accommodation business, the plan was revised to operate a medical care center for older persons due to lack of funds, and the approval of a tourist accommodation business plan was revoked accordingly. Therefore, even if the real estate is not for tourist accommodation business, the Defendant calculated the property tax base of the real estate of this case by deeming the use of the real estate of this case as a tourist accommodation business, and thus, the Defendant’s refusal disposition of this case on the premise that the total tax base of the real estate of this case exceeds 90 million won (hereinafter “instant Chapter 1”).

(2) Even if the sum of the property tax bases of the instant real estate exceeds KRW 900 million, the Plaintiff is currently taking enormous obligations.

arrow