logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2013.08.29 2012구합34266
장기요양급여비용 환수처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff established “C” and “D” on the 3rd ground floor above the window B of Changwon, and was designated as a sanatorium for older persons under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for Older Persons with C from the Changwon market (hereinafter “ Older Persons Insurance Act”), and operated D as a short-term care institution for older persons with home care.

B. On September 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011, the Defendant conducted a field survey on the details of benefits provided by C and D (hereinafter “the details of expenses for long-term care benefits”), and issued a disposition to recover KRW 38,591,340 in total to C with respect to the Plaintiff on January 26, 2012, and KRW 5,600,380 in total with respect to D, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff claimed expenses for long-term care benefits in violation of the Enforcement Rule of the Elderly Insurance Act, the notice on expenses for long-term care benefits, etc. (hereinafter “Notice on expenses for long-term care benefits”); and (b) the details on expenses for long-term care benefits (hereinafter

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). After providing short-term protection for beneficiaries of facility benefits 10% reduction of 10% for a violation of the standards for reduction of 10% of the reduction of 10% for taking measures for the contents of Nos. C, 10% reduction of the amount of short-term protection for beneficiaries of facility benefits to be claimed as facility benefits after providing short-term protection for a short-term protection, the violation of the standards for calculating the difference recovery of 3% of the amount of short-term protection claim (violation of the rate of 50% of the amount of hospitalization of medical institutions and the number of out-of-door stays) 10% of the claim (the violation of the rate of 50% reduction of the number of out-of-door stays)

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection on April 25, 2012, but was dismissed by the Defendant on July 27, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Attached Form of the relevant statute;

The same shall apply to the records of the relevant statutes.

B. The assertion and determination on C-related disposition are false or fraudulent as stipulated in Article 43(1)3 of the Elderly Insurance Act.

arrow