Effect of disposition of suspension of medical service rendered by the head of Gun

According to the provisions of Article 51 (1) of the Medical Service Act, an institution subject to the disposition of suspension of medical service when a medical institution violates the provisions of the Medical Service Act shall be limited to the Minister of Health and Welfare and the Do governor. Therefore, the Do governor, unless the above Medical Service Act provides that the authority may be delegated to the subordinate agency, cannot be partially delegated to the head of the Gun without any legal basis, and even if the head of the Gun has been delegated an internal delegation of the authority, the disposition of suspension of medical service cannot be taken under the name of the head of the Gun. Therefore

Articles 51 and 64 of the Medical Service Act

Plaintiff

Gangwon-gu Head of Gangwon-gu

The administrative disposition of the suspension of medical services rendered by the defendant against the plaintiff as of July 19, 1974 from July 21, 1974 to August 4, 1974 is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

If the statement of the complaint of this case and the whole purport of the plaintiff's oral argument are gathered, the summary of the fact that the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the administrative disposition of this case is the cause of the plaintiff's request for the suspension of medical service on the ground that the plaintiff violated Article 24 of the Medical Service Act, but the defendant did not have the legal authority to suspend the medical service in his name, and thus the disposition of this medical service against the plaintiff is an administrative disposition for the suspension of medical service, so it can be recognized that the cancellation of the above administrative disposition is sought in the purport of seeking confirmation of invalidity of the administrative disposition. Therefore, in the sense of seeking confirmation of invalidity of the administrative disposition, it is not necessary to meet the requirements of the discretionary power in the administrative litigation such as the case seeking its revocation, and therefore, it is not necessary to examine the requirements of the complete

On July 19, 1974, the fact that the defendant issued an administrative disposition such as the order on the ground that the plaintiff violated Article 24 of the Medical Service Act against the plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties. However, this case is not a case where the defendant did not deal with the administrative disposition by the Do Governor, and it is argued that the defendant merely delegated the authority from the Do Governor by the Do Governor pursuant to the Do Ordinance, and that the head of Gangwon-do imposed the disposition of suspension of medical service on the plaintiff's violation of the Medical Service Act based on the authority of the Do Governor. Thus, according to the provisions of Article 51 (1) of the Medical Service Act, the administrative agency where the medical institution violates the provisions of the Medical Service Act is limited to the Minister of Health and Welfare and the Do Governor, so the Do Governor cannot delegate part of the authority to the Gun without any special provision that the authority can be delegated to the Do Governor, and the defendant cannot exercise the authority of suspension of medical service under the name of the Do Governor.

Therefore, the disposition of suspension of the medical service of this case rendered by the defendant is an administrative disposition that is void automatically without making a decision on the remaining points. Therefore, the above disposition is justified, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation is accepted in the sense of seeking confirmation of invalidation, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge) Yang Young-tae Kim