The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant shall bear the costs of appeal.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the grounds for appeal are recognized (Nos. 1 and 2);

A. (1) Comprehensively taking account of the relevant provisions of the former National Health Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same), given that a medical institution established by a person who is unable to establish a medical institution cannot be a medical care institution under the former National Health Insurance Act, such medical institution’s provision of medical care benefits under the former National Health Insurance Act and claiming such medical care benefits constitutes “act of deception or other improper means,” and thus, it ought to be deemed that such medical institution’s provision of medical care benefits under the former National Health Insurance Act and its claim for such care benefits is subject to the disposition of collecting unjust benefits

In such a case, the nominal owner of the relevant medical institution is the other party to the disposition of collecting unjust benefits pursuant to Article 52(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du3996, Jun. 4, 2020, etc.). (2) The term “case where insurance benefits have been paid by fraudulent or other unjust means” under Article 52(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act does not require the medical care institution to submit false data or actively conceal facts in order to receive medical care benefits, but also includes all acts of claiming and receiving medical care benefits, despite the fact that it cannot be paid as medical care benefits pursuant to relevant statutes.

Therefore, an administrative agency that issued an unfair benefit collection disposition under Article 52 (1) of the former National Health Insurance Act is sufficient to prove the objective circumstance that the reason for disposition, namely, where the medical care costs paid by a medical care institution are not payable as medical care costs in accordance with the National Health Insurance Act and subordinate regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20192 52980, Jun. 25, 2020). (b) Reviewing the reasoning of the judgment of the lower court as to the instant case and the record, the instant hospital lent the Plaintiff’s name with the investment funds held by E, not medical care personnel, and the Plaintiff.