207Du18710 Such revocation of the revocation of the license suspension

OO

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney omitted

The Minister of Health and Welfare

Omission of Litigation Performers

Attorney omitted

1. The Korea △△ Association;

Seoul

President Kim Kim

Attorney Park Jae-hoon

2. Kim Jong-chul

Seoul

3. Quantities;

Seoul -

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Du17293 Decided August 10, 2007

May 13, 2011

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 2 of the Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 8203 of Jan. 3, 2007) provides that a medical person refers to a doctor who has obtained a license from the Minister of Health and Welfare, a doctor engaged in medical care and health guidance, and a doctor shall engage in oriental medicine and oriental medicine guidance. Article 5 provides that a person who intends to become a doctor or a △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ shall be qualified as a graduate from a university specializing in oriental medicine or oriental medicine and shall obtain a license from the Minister of Health and Welfare after passing a national examination. Article 25 provides that a person who is not a medical person shall be prohibited from performing any medical practice other than the licensed medical person, and Article 53 of the Medical Service Act provides that the Minister of Health and Welfare may suspend the license when he/she violates the orders under the Medical Service Act or the Medical Service Act, such as medical practice other than the licensed medical person.

On the other hand, the act of oriental medicine can be performed only by the △△△ in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Medical Service Act prior to the "act of preventing or treating a disease based on oriental medicine," which is traditional from our pre-feasting, and the act of treating the disease is "the act of oriental medicine performed by the doctor to prevent, mitigate, and treat the disease by taking advantage of the invasion," and it constitutes a case where the above act of treating the disease is performed by the doctor outside of the licence.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the disposition of this case, based on the premise that the act of this case is an act of aggression, which is one of the quasi-medical acts, is unlawful, on the ground that there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, on the following grounds: (a) the evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff, a doctor, is an act of aggression, as long as it is impossible to perform the procedure of this case, and on the ground that there is no other evidence to prove that the act of this case is an act of aggression, which is one of the quasi-medical acts, on June 28, 2004.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Even according to the reasoning of the judgment below, on June 28, 2004, the Plaintiff, a doctor, carried out the instant medical procedure with the content of exposing the body of 7 patient, such as gambling, etc., at the EU Council members who operated the Plaintiff. At the time of detection to public officials belonging to the Si public health clinic, the above 7 patients, at the time of detection, were placed in a bed or dick in a separate place, not in a treatment room, and the face, hair, head, shoulder, shoulder, shoulder, etc., the upper part (referring to the above part), the lower part (referring to as a double), the lower part (such as hand), hand, kne, knee, fel, shot, etc., of the body of the patient. The above parts, which were dumped with an bed from an bed and applied to an bed, are as follows; in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no room to see that an bed or galking the body of the case.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination that the instant disposition was unlawful on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that the instant treatment constitutes an act of aggression, which is a quasi-medical act, solely based on the circumstances indicated in its holding, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine as to an act of aggression, and it is obvious that the lower court failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal by the Defendant

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Kim Gi-hwan

Justices Lee In-bok