beta
Text
1. The Defendants each of the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 44,846,050 and the Defendants’ association A and B from November 9, 2007.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. A. Around February 2007, Defendant C, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution under the name of the Defendant Incorporated Association (hereinafter “Defendant Incorporated”) which is a non-profit corporation under the name of the medical person, in collusion with Defendant B, and in return, Defendant C promised to pay the entrance fee, deposit, monthly management fee, etc. to Defendant B.
B. Defendant C conspired with Defendant B in collusion with the above method from February 7, 2007 to July 1, 2007, with the name of the medical institution called “E Hospital of Incorporated Association A” (hereinafter “instant hospital”) in the building located in Incheon Strengthening-gun D, and had the doctor conduct medical treatment against the patient by employing medical doctors, nurses and other employees.
C. As above, Defendant B and C violated Articles 87(1)2 and 33(2) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 9906, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) by acting in collusion with and operating a medical institution by Defendant C, who is not a doctor, and the Defendant corporation was convicted of violation of Article 91(1) of the former Medical Service Act by in collusion with those who are not medical personnel, as seen above, by establishing and operating a medical institution by Defendant B, etc.
(208 Highest 5569). The defendant corporation and the defendant B appealed, but the judgment of conviction was maintained (In Mancheon District Court 2009No407). The defendant corporation appealed but was dismissed (Supreme Court 2009Do4061), and the judgment of conviction became final and conclusive.
Defendant B and C provided medical treatment to an unspecified number of patients during the period from February 7, 2007 to July 1, 2007, during which they operated the instant hospital, and thereafter filed a claim for medical care benefit under the former National Health Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “former Health Insurance Act”) with the Plaintiff. By November 8, 2007, Defendant B and C claimed medical care benefit costs from the Plaintiff as the name of medical care benefit costs.