The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 395,168,570 and its amount from May 22, 2013.

The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s primary claim is not a medical care provider, but established a foundation B (hereinafter “B”) which is a medical care institution, and operated from November 201 to June 2013 and had the doctor, etc. provide medical treatment. In such a case, the Defendant cannot claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

Nevertheless, the Defendant claimed medical care benefit costs and received KRW 395,168,570 from the Plaintiff without any legal ground, and thus, it shall be returned to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

The claim for medical care benefit costs against the plaintiff of a medical care institution cannot be viewed as immediately being caused by the National Health Insurance Act, regardless of whether the plaintiff's specific rights arise by determining the payment of the medical care benefit costs.

Therefore, unless the decision on the payment of medical care benefit costs corresponding to the legal cause of the receipt of medical care benefit costs by a medical care institution has not been revoked, it cannot be deemed that the medical care benefit costs paid according to such decision are gains without legal cause, unless there are special circumstances

(In addition, since a person who receives medical care benefit costs from the plaintiff is a founder of a medical care institution, barring special circumstances, if the plaintiff cancels the decision to pay the medical care benefit costs, the other party shall be a founder in the name of the medical care institution, not the actual founder of the medical care institution, and the person who established the name shall only be able to dispute the disposition by an appeal litigation, etc.). In this case, there is no assertion that the plaintiff revoked the decision to pay the medical care benefit costs related to B members, and there is no circumstance to deem

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment cannot be deemed established.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

The summary of the conjunctive claim.