logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.25 2017누38623
약국개설등록취소처분 취소
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 9, 2016, No. 2, No. 403.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the following two pages 3, 10, 5, and 11. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(except for “3. Conclusions.” 2. Amendment

A. Article 20(5)4 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that “Where a passage, such as an exclusive corridor, stairs, elevator or footbridge, is in place or is constructed between a medical institution and a pharmacy, the establishment of a pharmacy shall not be registered.”

As above, the legislative purport of restricting the establishment place of pharmacies is to fundamentally prevent the act of collusion between a medical institution and a pharmacy by preventing the establishment of a pharmacy in a case where there is a certain location-related relationship between a medical institution and a pharmacy in light of the fact that close relation between a medical institution and a pharmacy is highly likely to cause collusion between a medical institution and a pharmacy, while general administrative supervision is very difficult to detect specific collusion between the two.

[See Constitutional Court Order 2001Hun-Ma700, 2003Hun-Ba11, Oct. 30, 2003] The grounds under Article 20(5) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act that restrict the establishment registration of pharmacies, including the above provisions, are as follows: (a) it is not permissible to expand and interpret the grounds for restrictions beyond the reasonable meaning of the text in that it may result in restricting the freedom of business and the exercise of property rights guaranteed by the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4265, Jun. 11, 2009). As such, whether a pharmacy falls under Article 20(5)4 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, as well as the literal meaning of the text, is to place a pharmacy in a spatial and functional place independent of a medical institution in order to make it mandatory to prepare drugs outside the hospital for outpatients of a medical institution in accordance with the principle of pharmaceutical business.

arrow