1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,393,347,640 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 26, 2009 to April 26, 2016.

Basic Facts

In around 2004, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established the hospital by investing KRW 1.5 billion, and KRW 900 million, respectively, and distributed 50% of the shares and profits of the hospital. The Defendant, while taking charge of the business management of the hospital, entered into an agreement with the head of the hospital to take charge of the medical treatment part, and B, while taking charge of the medical treatment part, to take charge of the business as the duties of the head of the hospital and to take charge of

On September 18, 2007, the Defendant and B established “D Hospital” (hereinafter “instant hospital”) under the name of “D Hospital” and operated until November 25, 2009 in accordance with the said agreement.

Defendant and B were sentenced to a suspended sentence of five-year imprisonment with prison labor for three years on October 15, 2015, on the grounds that the Defendant, who was not a doctor, committed a violation of Article 87(1)2 and Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act by opening and operating a medical institution, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of five years in this court

(Court 2015Kahap25). The defendant appealed but was dismissed (Seoul High Court 2015No213), and the above case is currently pending in the final appeal.

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Do11018). The Defendant provided treatment to a large number of unspecified patients who operated the instant hospital as a partnership with B during the period from September 18, 2007 to November 25, 2009, and filed a claim for medical care benefit costs for industrial accident compensation insurance with the Plaintiff. The Defendant received KRW 1,393,347,640 as the name of the medical care benefit costs from the Plaintiff.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including the number of branches), and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the entire argument is established by a person who is not a medical institution, and the hospital of this case cannot be designated as a medical institution under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter "industrial accident insurance"), which is not a medical institution under the Medical Service Act. The defendant and Eul conspired with the plaintiff to designate the medical institution for industrial accident compensation insurance under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.