2018Nu77397 Revocation of the revocation of the license suspension

A

Law Firm Han-nam et al.

Attorney Park Yong-han

The Minister of Health and Welfare

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2018Guhap52020 decided November 15, 2018

October 2, 2019:

November 13, 2019

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of suspending qualification for two months against the plaintiff on January 15, 2018 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation, etc. of the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is to add to the judgment of the court of first instance that it is difficult to view it differently from the court of first instance even in light of the evidence submitted by the defendant (Evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4-1, 2, and 5 of the evidence submitted by the defendant) and the result of the fact-finding on the G Hospital of this court. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning (including "related Acts and subordinate statutes", but excluding the part "3. conclusion") except for the modification of the relevant part as follows 2. Thus, it is to be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of

2. Parts to be corrected;

○○ 4 13 currency ".................." are as follows.

【The 119 Situation Room did not fully mention the location of the ambulances and the distance from the regional emergency medical institutions, such as the instant hospital and G hospital, and the type, material, size, etc. of the instant infant’s clins. On one occasion between the nurse of the instant hospital and the nurse of the instant hospital, the call was completed immediately after the arrival of the questions and answers.】

○ 5 12 pages “The instant hospital added the 119 situation room staff and the nurse of the instant hospital to “at the time the said call was made” on the right side.

○ 6 must add the following to "as to the right side of the facts" below 8:

In the case of a patient of △△△ CPR (HH), the 119th room notified that "I will arrive at several minutes immediately," and that "I will promptly take measures to send back," and the case was asked whether it is possible to give treatment. In the case of a patient of △△△ CPR, G medical institution, which is a regional emergency medical institution, is a regional emergency medical institution, while there are human resources standards for medical specialists in exclusive charge of infant patients and nurses in the case of a regional emergency medical institution, a regional emergency medical institution, but a local emergency medical institution does not have such human resources standards as above, it seems that the CPR (HH) patient is not between patients in the 119 room and whether it is possible to take appropriate measures against the infant of this case, and it appears that I would have asked whether the patient of this case could take treatment. In light of the fact that the hospital of this case was not equipped with human resources and equipment to deal with the city in the △△ Hospital, the hospital of this case did not have any justifiable reason for the plaintiff of this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the grounds of its merit.

Justices Kim Dong-ok

Judges Park Jae-woo

Judges Park Jae-chul