(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.11.29.선고 2017구합63481 판결

1. The Defendant’s imposition of a penalty surcharge against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2017, and the disposition rejecting the payment of compensation for losses on February 13, 2017, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established for the purpose of medical services, etc., and operates a B Hospital. A total of 186 patients were infected by Mesa, such as C Hospital, B Hospital, etc., from May 20, 2015 to November 25, 2015, and 38 persons died.

B. On May 17, 2015, B hospital: (a) took charge of the treatment of a patient who was judged to be meatized and who was under medical treatment on May 27, 2015; and (b) on May 27, 2015; and (c) provided several meatized patients who were determined to be meatized on May 5, 2015 (the second infection from the patient No. 1); and (b) closed the hospital in part from June 14, 2015 to July 20 of the same year, as many meatized patients and the medical professionals were suffering from a large number of meatized patients, to prevent the spread of meat.

C. Around August 2015, the Defendant requested the submission of materials for compensation for losses to the medical institution suffering from the loss due to the treatment, diagnosis, and isolation of the metar patient pursuant to Article 70(1) of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act (hereinafter “ Infectious Disease Prevention Act”).

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a claim for compensation of KRW 18 billion with the Defendant by asserting that B Hospital was required for the medical treatment and isolation of patients with infectious diseases, etc., or for the installation, equipment, human resources, etc. not used for its original purpose during the same period from June 2015 to July 2015 (two months), which resulted in losses of KRW 1,13.1 billion as operating income was reduced to 36% during the same period from June 2015 to July 2015, and paid KRW 2.2 billion as personnel expenses for isolation medical personnel, and filed a claim for compensation of damages equivalent to KRW 1.2 billion with the Defendant, claiming that the relevant materials were required for the purchase of materials, such as sound pressure wards, protective clothes, and mack.

E. On February 1, 2017, the Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant on May 31, 2015, imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 8,062,50 on behalf of the Defendant on the ground that the epidemiological investigation officer, pursuant to Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 13599, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the “former Medical Service Act”), the Defendant refused to comply with the order to submit the list, including the contact number of the patient who was closely contacted, excluding the group 1,2, 3,4, and 5, excluding the group 1,2, and 3,4, and 5, on behalf of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant list”), on behalf of the Defendant.

F. In addition, the Defendant held a deliberative committee on compensation for losses on February 10, 2017 regarding the Plaintiff’s above compensation for losses, and on February 2 and 13, 2017, the Defendant violated Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act and Article 18(3) of the former Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 13392, Jul. 6, 2015; hereinafter “former Infectious Disease Prevention Act”). This constitutes grounds for exclusion from the payment of compensation for losses under Article 70(3) of the Infectious Disease Prevention and Prevention Act and Article 28-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Infectious Disease Prevention and Prevention Act”). On the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes grounds for exclusion from the payment of compensation for losses under Article 70(3) of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act (hereinafter “instant rejection of compensation for losses”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 36, 37, 39 (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) In relation to the imposition of the instant penalty surcharge, the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Act merely takes charge of an epidemiological investigation under Article 18 of the communicable Disease Prevention Act as the Defendant’s subsidiary body and practically takes charge of it through division of duties. As such, an epidemiological investigation officer’s request for the submission of the instant list, including his address and contact address, as part of the activities to trace infections to B Hospital, is one of the activities performed by the Defendant’s subsidiary bodies, and its legal effect naturally belongs to the Defendant. Therefore, a request for the submission of the instant list executed by an epidemiological investigation officer constitutes “the order of the Defendant” under Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act. As such, even though the Defendant issued an order to provide the instant list to the Plaintiff through an epidemiological investigation officer, the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order violates Article 59(

2) As to the refusal to pay the instant compensation for losses

A) The determination of the instant compensation for losses was made by the Compensation Deliberation Committee, and the Defendant’s notification of the determination of the compensation for losses was merely notification of the concept of informing the Plaintiff of the determination by the Compensation Deliberation Committee. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim for cancellation of the instant compensation for losses is unlawful, since there is no standing to be the Defendant in an appeal litigation regarding

B) The delay in the submission of the list of this case constitutes (i) the Defendant’s violation of Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act and (ii) the exclusion from the payment of compensation for losses due to an epidemiological investigation conducted pursuant to Article 18(3) of the former Infectious Disease Prevention Act. The instant disposition rejecting the payment of compensation for losses is lawful, on the grounds that the instant violation directly caused the occurrence of an additional infected patient from the contact with the patient’s secret contact at 14 times, and led to the spread of mers and the closure of the hospital. If the Plaintiff fulfilled the request by the epidemiological investigation officer for the submission of the list of this case at the timely time, the Plaintiff could have prevented considerable portion of the loss. As such, the instant violation was directly related to the occurrence or expansion of the Plaintiff’s loss through the spread of mers and provided a significant cause. Therefore, the grounds for refusing the payment of compensation for losses under Article 70(3) of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act and

B. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) As to the imposition of the instant penalty surcharge

A) Under Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act, the Defendant did not directly issue a “order” to the Plaintiff under his/her name, and there is no legal basis to delegate his/her authority to an epidemiological investigation officer to exercise his/her authority, and there is no fact that the epidemiological investigation officer delegated his/her authority to exercise the authority on behalf of the epidemiological investigation officers. Moreover, there is no need for the epidemiological investigation officers to explicitly request the submission of the instant list concerning the confidential contact patients who are not subject to isolation measures, or to request only their “conceive contact points,” and there is no fact that the Plaintiff did not comply

B) Even if the Defendant’s order under Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act exists and the grounds for the disposition are acknowledged, considering the fact that there was no explicit request or communication as to the items of the list in the situation of extreme confusion at the time, and that the refusal to submit the list of this case cannot be deemed to have adversely affected the prevention of the spread of the list, the disposition imposing the instant penalty surcharge is unlawful by abusing or abusing discretionary authority.

2) As to the refusal to pay the instant compensation for losses

A) Since the administrative agency that rejected the instant disposition to pay compensation for losses is the defendant, the defendant is entitled to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said disposition.

B) (1) Of the acts of violating an order under Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act, among those cited as the grounds for disposal by the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that there was an order issued by the Defendant, and thus, this part of the grounds for disposal is not recognized. In addition, epidemiological investigation officers did not request that the contact details of the instant list be given priority, and the Plaintiff provided access to the electronic medical record (EM) database so that they can directly verify the patient contact information, such as contact details. Furthermore, the Plaintiff continued to provide additional information that was managed and installed at the time, and there was no interference with epidemiological investigation of patients 14 times due to the delay in submitting the instant list, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have refused, obstructed, and evaded an epidemiological investigation under Article 18(3) of the former Infectious Disease Prevention Act. Even if the request of epidemiological investigation officers for delayed submission of the instant list was not faithfully complied with, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the request of the Plaintiff for compensation for losses and preventive measures under Article 18(3).

3. Facts of recognition;

(a) Medical knowledge on Mesens;

1) Mexian disease is an infectious disease that appeared around April 2012, 2012, centering on Araviado in the Middle East region, due to respiratory infection caused by Amerascovia virus. From April 2012 to May 21, 2015, 1,154 patients suffered from 1,154 patients in total in 24 countries (10 countries in East, Europe, 8 countries in Africa, 2 countries in Asia, 3 countries in Asia, and 19 countries in Amerasia (1,002), 471 of them were dead. The main development country is Saudidivia (76 persons), 12 tar (12 persons), 19 persons in East countries, etc.

2) 메르스의 감염경로는 명확히 밝혀지지 않았지만, 사우디아라비아 내 단봉낙타 접촉에 의한 감염전파가 보고되고 있고, 사람 간 밀접 접촉에 의한 비말(飛洙) 감염이 주요한 것으로 알려져 있다.

3) Most of the meter patients seem to have symptoms, such as heat, parassis, and respiratory distress, due to symptoms of heavy symptoms. Some of them are influorous or light acute diseases.

In addition to the state symptoms, there may also be symptoms of the fire extinguishing season, such as eating, heart, stove, stove, stoves, and stoves, as well as drinking, stoves, stoves, stoves, and stoves.

4) The cases involving pulmonary pulmonary eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical eurgical e.

5) Until now, there has been no white letter for the prevention of infections with the Mex virus, and since the Mexa has not been developed with the Mexa for treatment, Mexa patients have to be provided with urgical treatment. Among the witnesses, Mexa treatment, etc. shall be conducted, such as artificial absorption and urgical treatment.

B. Contents of the Mes Response Guidelines

1) On September 2012, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established the Messen Response Guidelines (No. 1) on July 8, 2014, in preparation for the possibility of domestic occurrence of Messens whose patients are continuing around the middle East area, and sent the Messen Response (No. 2) upon amendment of some of the details on December 24, 2014 to City/Do, etc. After the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established the Mes Response Guidelines (No. 3) by revising some of the details on May 25, 2015, and supplementing it, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established the Mes Response Guidelines (No. 2015, May 26, 2015, 3-1, and June 3-2, 2015, and enforced the Messen Response Guidelines (No. 3) on June 3-3, 2015.

2) The definition of "Mess-patient case definition" and the scope of "Contact patients" set out in each Mes-vis response guidelines are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

3) According to the Messen response guidelines (No. 2), the contacter is identified depending on the patient’s mother line, the degree of contact, degree of exposure, etc. through interview with the contacter, and the contacter is closely classified as the contacter and the ordinary contacter, and the contacter is isolated from his/her home, etc., and the contacter is under surveillance for 14 days on whether or not there is symptoms, and the ordinary contacter is under surveillance for 14 days without isolation.

4) According to the Messen Response Guidelines (No. 3-1), when a Messenist patient is suspected, the medical institution shall report to the competent public health clinic, and the central and City/Do epidemiological investigation officers shall hold interviews with suspected patients, confirmed patients, guardians, medical care personnel, etc. through epidemiological investigations, classify the contact points according to the degree of contact with the suspected patients, and notify the Director General of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Disease Control and Prevention of Contacts of the results of epidemiological investigations and the list of the contact points to the Si/Gun/Gu public health center where the contact points are located, and in the case of a person closely contact with the relevant public health center, the Director General of the Korea Centers

1) On May 4, 2015, patients No. 1 entered the Incheon Airport via Kaar (hereinafter referred to as "2015") around May 4, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the fact that occurred in May 5 and June 2015"). From May 11, 201 to May 15, 201, patients entered the Republic of Korea via Kaar. They received outpatient treatment at Do Council members from May 12 to May 15, 201, and were hospitalized in the C Hospital E from May 515 to May 17, 2015, and were discharged from the said hospital in sequence to F Council members and B Emergency Hospital, and returned to Korea.

2) On 5,18:00 again, the patient was hospitalized at B Hospital at around 10:00, and around 5,20.06:00, the patient was transferred to the National Medical Center at around 13:26.

3) In consultation with B Hospital on May 20, 20, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hereinafter “the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”): (a) in the case of the emergency room of B Hospital, where the patient had been staying in the first time, many persons, such as patients, guardians, and medical professionals, are mixed with each other; and (b) accordingly, the exposed patients, depending on the group of patients 1 to 1 to 5 group, are classified into 1 to 2 group; and (c) the exposed employees decided to be isolated from 1 to 3 group. After receiving a list of 1 to 21 group employees from B Hospital, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hereinafter “the Korea Centers”) submitted a list of 1 to 190,00 group employees and 2 to 3 group employees, patients, and guardians, and requested that B hospital more specific contact persons among the exposed patients, without conducting an epidemiological investigation, such as investigating the contact persons.

4) From May 20 to May 22, 200, B Hospital requested the head of B Hospital to inform the risk of exposure to me, and the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requested the head of B Hospital to notify the risk of direct exposure to 2, 3, and 2, and 3, to monitor patients exposed. An epidemiological investigation officer, etc. did not conduct an investigation of contact by tracking the patients exposed to B in the emergency room and their guardians, and did not receive the successor list and the list of 2, 3, and 3, and did not notify the City/Do list. The Defendant received the list of patients exposed to B on May 27, 200 and ordered the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to directly manage the patients exposed to B in the name of the City/Do. However, the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to receive the list of patients exposed to B on May 28, 2005.

5) On the other hand, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted an epidemiological investigation on patients at F medical clinics, D Hospital, and C Hospital once after the determination of the probability of patients at 1, and only the persons closely contacted in the process.

Absentrs did not take a separate measure against ordinary contactors.

6) On June 4, 28, the Ministry of Health and Welfare decided to share information on the hospital where patients suffered from Mesia patients were hospitalized in G Hospital via D Hospital. On June 5, 200, the Ministry of Health and Welfare first disclosed the C hospital where patients suffered from Mesia patients, and on July 18, 200, disclosed 24 Mesia patients’ name, including Mesia hospital via Mesia patients.

(d) To request the list of the patients 14 metregy, the dispatch of epidemiological investigation officers, and the list of contact officers;

1) From May 13 to May 20, 14, patients were hospitalized in C Hospital H, based on the opinion of confluence. The patients were hospitalized in the hospital on May 25, 200, but were hospitalized in the emergency room of B Hospital from May 27 to May 29, 200, and was isolated by being known that the me was exposed to B Hospital at around 5,29 21:00, and were transferred to Seoul National University Hospital that was isolated by the State.

2) On May 29, 21:00, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed and contacted B Hospital No. 14. Around 21:00, B Hospital was in charge of collecting the body of the patient and taking measures to isolate the patient’s rooms. On May 29, 200, K was given instructions to B Hospital for the epidemiological investigation of the patient No. 14 while being on dispatch to D Hospital and B Hospital for the epidemiological investigation of the patient No. 14. An epidemiological investigation officer instructed Ldo 5, 29, 22:29, and 14, and arrived at B Hospital upon receiving instructions to support the epidemiological investigation officer of the patient No. 14. L was in charge of investigating the name, telephone number, address, date of birth, etc. of the patient who entered the hospital before the emergency room after having arrived at B Hospital, and sought to suspend the investigation.

3) On May 30, 30, 00, M of the Head of the B Hospital infection Control Office notified the epidemiological investigation officer L, K, and J of the point of origin, symptoms, scope of exposure to the patient at the time of occurrence of the patient at the time of occurrence of the patient at 14 times, group classification standards of the contacter, emergency measures, etc. at the situation room of the B Hospital infection Control Office M of the B Hospital infection Control Office and the epidemiological investigation officer at the time of the former consultation with the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the identification and management of the patient at the time of occurrence of the patient at the time of occurrence of the patient at 14 times, the patient at 14 times is divided into five groups, and the patient at the place and the same line are subject to isolation of 1,2 groups, and the rest is divided into three groups, and one group is divided into three groups, and the patient at the name of the group at the time of the above group was prepared and provided from the beginning to the beginning.

Group 1 (117) Group 1 (117): A patient group 3 (95) of a patient group with the same emergency room located in the same time as a patient at 14: A patient group 3 (65) of a patient group with the possibility that the towing room overlaps: A patient group 4 (61) of a patient group who was laid away from a credit area/surbing room, other than a patient's sojourn area: the receipt and receipt time of an emergency room is similar, the patient at least 30 minutes prior to the time when the patient taken X-ray, and the more than 2 hours thereafter.

Group 5 (405): all patients staying in an emergency room at the same time as the patients at 14 times,* 14 patients exposed to the patients at 678. The exposure staff shall consist of one group (37), two group (5), and three group (128).

4) On 530, B hospital’s side provided personal PC to the epidemiological investigation officers in the five-story situation room, and provided IDs and plaques so that they can have access to electronic medical records. The employees of the infectious disease control office began to prepare a list immediately at the situation room, and the epidemiological investigation officers conducted an epidemiological investigation into the original contact officer (119 members, etc.) while waiting for the completion of the list.

5) On the other hand, the defendant reported the occurrence of patients at 5,30:0 am of the daily situation checkup meeting of the countermeasures against the 5,400 am (the head of the countermeasures headquarters and the executive officer of the planning general team and the officer of the general team) at 14:0 am of the B Hospital, and ordered the B Hospital to check the status of patients contact at 14:0 am of the B Hospital and to take follow-up measures. On June 1, 2006, the inspection meeting of the daily situation point to identify and take measures for all persons who are likely to be infected with the on-site epidemiological investigation team as soon as possible, and to establish an organization by reporting on daily reports at the site so that daily reports can be easily listed.

E. The details of the request for the submission and submission of the instant list, which are verified by means of e-mail, text, etc. among the 14 patients contact list, and the Epidemiological Investigation Officers, etc., of B Hospital infection control offices, and epidemiological investigation officers, are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

2) The contents of “request for cooperation in the epidemiological investigation of infectious diseases sent by the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the Director of the B Hospital from May 29 to June 3 are as follows. This was done at the request of K of the Epidemiological Investigation Officers, etc., upon the request of the Epidemiological Investigation Officers K, etc., by a formal official request.

► 5. 29.자 공문2. 우리 본부는 감염병 예방 및 관리에 관한 법률 제18조(역학조사), 같은 법 시행령 제12조(역학조사 내용)에 의해 역학조사를 수행하고 있습니다.3. 귀 병원에서 진료받은 환자로부터 메르스 의심환자가 신고됨에 따라 다음과 같이 현장역학조사를 실시하고자 하니, 조사가 원활히 진행될 수 있도록 협조해 주시기 바랍니다.가. 조사일: 2015. 5. 29.(금)나. 조사자: 질병관리본부 역학조사관 K, J, L, W다. 조사 대상자: 메르스 의심환자 및 접촉자라. 조사내용: 의무기록 열람 및 주치의 면담► 5. 31.자 공문(위 5. 29.자 공문의 2. 3.항과 동일함)가. 조사일: 2015. 5. 31.(일)나. 조사자: 질병관리본부 역학조사관 K, J, L, X, R, Y다. 조사 대상자: 메르스 의심환자 및 접촉자라. 조사내용: 병원 구성원 전체 명단, 환자 거쳐 간 병동, 응급실 도면, 의무기록 열람 등▶ 6. 2.자 공문

(위 5. 29.자 공문의 2. 3.항과 동일함)가. 조사일: 2015. 6. 2.(화)나, 조사자: 질병관리본부 역학조사관 K, X, R다. 조사 대상자: 메르스 의심환자 및 접촉자(메르스 확진환자 000 조사 관련)라. 조사내용: 병원 구성원 전체 명단, 환자 거쳐 간 병동, 응급실 도면, 의무기록 열람 등► 6. 3.자 공문1. 우리 본부는 감염병 예방 및 관리에 관한 법률 제18조(역학조사), 같은 법 시행령 제12조(역학조사 내용)에 의해 역학조사를 수행하고 있습니다.2. 귀 기관에서 신고된 메르스 환자 000, 000에 대하여 접촉자 조사를 실시하기 위해 아래와 같이 접촉자 정보를 요청하오니 적극 협조해 주시기 바랍니다.3. 아울러, 접촉자 정보 미확보로 능동감시 또는 자가격리 시행이 지체되지 않도록 해주시기 바랍니다.□ 접촉자 관련 요청 정보: 성명, 생년월일, 성별, 전화번호, 주소 등 인적정보 및 접촉력관련 정보

3) On May 31, 31, 13:08, Q2 of the Ministry of Health and Welfare submitted a list of 117 members of group 1, including contact numbers and addresses, to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and the Ministry of Health and Welfare discussed on June 1, 200 at the meeting of the Vmers Countermeasures Headquarters, where there were many complaints to file a complaint to contact with the Mmers-related telephone of the Countermeasures Headquarters, which was held by the Director of the Nmers Countermeasures Headquarters, regarding the uneasiness and compliance increase of patients and guardians for inappropriate response of the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

4) On the other hand, the Board of Audit and Inspection notified the National Assembly of its request for audit related to the Morse situation, and conducted an audit from August 2015 to November 2015. In the investigation, the epidemiological investigation officers stated the following as to the process of submitting a patient contact list No. 14 including the instant list:

(A) L, R: 5. 29. On the other hand, I tried to prepare a list. On the other hand, I would like to stop the list. On the other hand, I would like to request 14 patient data, list of contact persons, and emergency room drawings to be submitted. On the other hand, I would like to report the situation of non-cooperation of the list to the second head of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, because I would like to have no contact address until 30 days. On May 31, 200, I would like to look at 12:0 to 14:0,000, and that there was no other contact address, and that there was no other contact address. I would like to have been no more than 1:5,00,000 from 2:0 to 3:0,000 from 1:5:0 to 14:0,000 from 2:0 to 3:5,000, there was no other contact address and no other contact address.

B) From May 29, 200 to the Epidemiological Investigation Officer K: (a) requested a list of contact points with L to contact points and addresses. (b) On May 30, 200, from the Ministry of Health and Welfare T officer of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Health and Welfare demanded the list of contact points and addresses to change the list of contact points and addresses. (c) On May 31, 200, the statement that the list including contact points and addresses has already been completed is not timely. (d) around 00:12 on June 1, 200, the reasons why the request for the entry of additional items, such as the date of initial symptoms, was based on the opinion of the Epidemiological Investigation Officer R, L, andY. (e.g., the time was delayed due to the collection of data on the above additional items from the side of the B hospital, and there was no additional request from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and (e.g., the number of contact points was not changed to the previous list within 1.).

5) The epidemiological investigation officers and the persons involved in the survey of the hospital B testified testified at this Court 14 times, including the instant list, as follows:

A) Epidemiological investigation officer L: The hospital stated that they immediately prepare a list; 14.

On May 30, 200, the patient requested the list of the entire patients and their guardians who were suffering from the same time in the Sslova emergency room. On May 30, 201, the patient constantly demanded the eption team to change the contact points with contact points and address. On May 31, 2005, the epidemiologic officer’s eption officer’s eption to promptly deal with the patient transfer, inspection results, etc., and the eption officer failed to cooperate in the submission of the list, and the eption officer’s request the N of the infectious disease control team for the cooperation of epidemiological investigation and the submission of the list, and the eption or delay should not be interfered with the epidemiological investigation. The eption officer stated that the eption officer did not perform his duties by referring to “the order of the Minister of Health and Welfare,” “the head of the Nmtro, etc. of the infectious disease control room or the head of the Nmart, etc.”

B The list sent to Q Q from the hospital was less than the number of contact points previously attended by the hospital. At around 21:0 on May 31, 21, 200, M had an interview with the chief of the infectious disease control office, such as R and K, and M had a lot of complaints for 'patients or guardians'. The Ministry of Health and Welfare had a lot of complaints. On June 1, 1, 200: 35, there was no request for additional entry; 2.00 :0 :0 : 35 :0; 2.00 :0 :0 : 14; 35 :0 :0 :0 ; 14:00 from the beginning, when the patient was in an emergency room, the contact point and address of all contact points was required to be recorded on behalf of the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection on behalf of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

C) Epidemiological Investigation Officer R: No more accurately memory is present about the situation at the time. When an investigation is conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection, an answer was made as much as his/her memory.

D) The chief of the infectious control office M: Classification of the contact patient into one to five groups is the situation of the patient once.

In response to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is a matter approved after consultation with the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the personal information of patients with infectious diseases, etc. should naturally enter the details to be included in the epidemiological investigation, it should be determined by identifying basic information on contact persons prior to contact points, and the risk of the contact point should be determined. The first patient was also inspected by an epidemiological investigation officer again. There was no statement that a certain item is included in L. Specifically, there was no contact point. The list to which contact was placed and the list of the posters with patient information was prepared separately, and the data was continuously collected by utilizing the list to provide a lot of information to contact persons. The Q officer who requested the close list was prepared a list including the list of contact points, by accurately notifying Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q not receiving the list of this case that is not subject to facility isolation, but only providing basic information. On May 31, 200, there was no need to inform Q Q Q Q Q Q Q of the personal information to be distributed from the epidemiological investigation.

There is no mentioning that the epidemiological investigation officers may be subject to sanctions or punishment if they request to provide a list of contact points of patients 14 times, or if they comply with the order of the defendant.

E) N of infectious disease control team N: The first medical record was prepared by comparing the list with the daily medical record, and arranged items, such as contact address and address with the help of the original team. Although Q2 was interested only in the list of the contact parties subject to isolation, it was prepared for patient management, and it was sent a list including simple information to have an interest in the other contact parties. No later than June 2, 200, the epidemiological investigation officers specifically designated a specific item for the contact parties and did not indicate that the list would be issued for the first time. After the 31st session of the MU, it was necessary for the contact group to prepare a list without any specific contact details for the first time, and the contact details of the list should be prepared for the first time without any specific contact details for the patient's contact details. The contact details of the list should be prepared for the first time without any specific contact details for the patient's contact details, and the contact details of the list should be prepared for the first time after the request for contact details of the 678 list.

F) The Ministry of Health and Welfare facility management team officer Q: A manager of the Ministry of Health and Welfare has been in charge of securing a list of persons subject to facility isolation, and there was a need to contact because of the need to have an intention to isolate the facility. In the M and N currency of the infection control office, accurate communication of contact information and address was required.

At the B Hospital, it was said that they would have been directly engaged in medical care, and that there was no person who wants to be isolated from the facilities among the exposed employees, and that the content of the list (the list of workers) would be sent after deducting the list. M sent only to Q Q officer because M would change the list of those who want to do so. M would be asked whether ‘I sent the list' and ‘I sent the list'. M would be called ‘I would promptly and soon.' On the other hand, ‘I would like to communicate the patient first because the patient could grow up upon the Government's own contact. On May 31, 200 after receipt of the list of those subject to the facilities isolation, M would not be necessary to send the list to the patient and the patient who was employed in the emergency room. However, there was no further need to use the list.

(f) Status of measures following the receipt of the list of contact points for patients No. 14;

1) The facility management team of the Ministry of Health and Welfare received a list of 117 patients closely contacted with patients No. 13:08 B Hospital 14 on May 31, 31, 198, and confirmed the intent of the contact parties to isolate the facility, but no person wishing to isolate the facility was available to the contact, but the facility isolation was not conducted on the ground that there was no person wishing to have the facility isolation. In addition, by utilizing the above list, the manager tracking investigation or closely contacted with the guardian did not undergo inspection, monitoring, etc., of the isolation. Q transmitted the 678 successor (which does not indicate the contact

2) On June 2, 21:32, K submitted the instant list (561) containing contact points and addresses with respect to 3:5 group from the hospital, and on June 3, 201, after receiving a patient (including contact points and addresses) exposed to 14 from the hospital 13:30 B, K sent the above list to all teams of the on-site inspection team and the data entry team of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc. However, the person in charge of the epidemiological investigation and data entry of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the person in charge of the data entry did not think that the new list is the same as the existing data submitted without contact points and address from June 3 to June 5, 200 each day. Ultimately, the above list was entered on June 6, 200, and the list was notified to the regional health center, etc.

3) As such, the notification of the list of patients exposed to the patients No. 14 was delayed until June 7, 200, the notification of the risk of exposure to the contact parties was not implemented at the time, as well as the isolation and dynamic surveillance through City/Do public health clinics, etc. in accordance with the Mesens response guidelines.

4) Among the contact points 14, 81 of the patients, 16 of them died. Meanwhile, 40 of the guardians of the patient in an emergency room (the third infection) caused the occurrence of 40 of the 17th patients, and 6 of them were identified as the contact points. The additional infections (the third infections) among the persons listed in the instant list (the third infections) were identified as the contact points, 4 group 3 (7, 80, 90 patients), 5 group 5 (7, 76, 113, 171, 186 patients), 5 group 5 (the third infections No. 72, 76, 171, and 186). Among them, 17 persons suspected of additional infections (the fourth infections), including 5 of the medical team, were identified as the patient in the instant list, and 17 of the patients in the form of 7 me.

5) Meanwhile, around June 2, 200, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notified the list of contact points to the National Health Insurance Corporation and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, and conducted a survey of transfer of contact points, and found those who have symptoms of heat or respiratory symptoms from among the contact points and found them to be known to the public health clinic. However, the above call center provided monitoring to the contact points of patients No. 14, which only provided monitoring data around 6.3 and around 6.3 (No. 23).

6) In the case of a patient of 76 times in the list of this case (third infections), he was not informed of the fact that he was exposed to AA Hospital and AB Hospital, etc. on May 5, 200, and during this process, 11 of the total infections occurred, and 2 of the two were dead. In the case of a patient of 123 patients (third infections) who are the guardian of the patient of 5 group (third infections), a member of the department within AC was visited on June 8, 200, and 14 of the first infections occurred during this process.

(g)requesting the submission of a list of contactors at the same time, consisting of no more than 35 patients;

1) On May 31, 35, a medical doctor, performed measures for isolation and isolation of patients with symptoms related to respiratory equipment, and on June 2, 15:48, an epidemiological investigation officer R submitted to N of the infectious disease control team N of the infectious disease control team N of the 35th infectious disease, “risk level, etc.” to submit only brief personal information, such as the name, date of birth, gender, age, and contact number of employees and patients, as the epidemiological investigation officer classified and is expected to separately monitor the patient’s list. Accordingly, N submitted to R a list of contact points 21:24 on the same day.

2) On November 18, 2015, R stated the reasons why the Board of Audit and Inspection requested the contact information as above in the course of the audit and inspection as follows: “The submission of a list including the contact details and address of the patient exposed to the patient at B Hospital No. 14 is being delayed due to the fact that the contact details and address of the patient at B Hospital were directly phoneed to the exposed patient, and that the contact details of the patient at B Hospital were delayed due to their daily identification.” As to the contact persons at 35 times, R stated that the list of contact details and addresses was re-issued as the shipment.

(h) Measures to spread Meices and close hospitals;

1) On June 8, 200, the President directed the 'Immediate response team' with a full authority over hospital infection control guidance. Accordingly, the central and local countermeasure headquarters organized a prompt decision-making and on-site support measures in accordance with the quantity of mers radio waves. In other words, the central and local countermeasure headquarters granted the right to request the administrative support, including the closure order of the relevant hospital, to the immediate response team.

2) On June 12, 137, when the emergency room transport staff of the B hospital was confirmed to be patients at 137 and the movement of the area around the emergency room of the patient at 14th time, the "B Hospital Private Joint Response Team consisting of 10 civilian experts among the response team, 6 epidemic control officers, etc. of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and 4 epidemiological investigation officers, etc. from June 13, 2006, the "Paly Response Team" started with activities from June 13, 200, takes overall control of the epidemiological investigation and quarantine measures of B hospital, etc., and takes measures such as epidemiological investigation and response measures for 4,075 persons subject to management, such as active time and isolation, and the part closure plan. The first part closure period of B hospital was extended by June 24, 200, but the period was extended without a separate decision, and thereafter, the head of the Gangnam-gu Public Health Center should undergo guidance from the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Health Center for the commencement of the hospital.

(i) Holding a committee for compensation for losses and paying compensation for Morse;

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant held a committee for compensation for losses and decided to pay compensation for total amount of KRW 1,78.1 billion to 23 medical institutions (including 186 medical institutions, 22 pharmacies, and 35 shops) that treated, treated, or isolated mecons patients, or closed the sick ward. The compensation for losses was calculated based on the results of treatment, medical treatment, and isolation of mecons patients, the number of beds closed to prevent the spread of mecons, or the period of suspension of business.

In this process, the decision of payment was postponed on the grounds that the prosecutor's investigation and the audit of the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted with respect to the B Hospital, and the decision of payment was made based on the result. As seen earlier, the Defendant held a compensation deliberation committee to determine whether to pay compensation for losses to B Hospital on February 10, 2017, and issued the instant rejection disposition on February 13, 2017.

[Based on Recognition] A without any dispute, Gap's testimony, and evidence 3 through 10, 12 through 21, 23, 24, 31, 38, 43, 46, and evidence 1 through 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 through 24, witness, M, N, K, Q, and R's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

4. Whether the imposition of the penalty surcharge in this case is legitimate

A. Relevant statutes

Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act provides that "the Minister of Health and Welfare or a Mayor/Do Governor may issue necessary guidance and orders to a medical institution or a medical person when it is necessary for policies on health and medical services or when it causes or is likely to cause serious harm to national health." According to Articles 64(1)3 and 67(1) of the former Medical Service Act, if a medical institution violates an order under Article 59, the defendant may suspend its business for a period not exceeding one year, revoke its establishment permission, or close its medical institution. In such cases, the defendant may impose a penalty surcharge not exceeding 50 million won in lieu of the suspension of medical service.

(b) the existence of the reasons for the measure;

1) An order issued by the Minister of Health and Welfare to a medical institution or a medical person pursuant to Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act is a disposition such as “the exercise of public authority as an enforcement of law on specific facts by an administrative agency” (Article 2(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act), since it is possible for the other party to impose sanctions, such as suspension of medical services, when the other party violates the order.

Therefore, the defendant's above order should, in principle, be made specifically and clearly in accordance with Articles 5, 23, and 24 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and in principle, the grounds and reasons for the disposition should be presented in writing, and the document should contain "disposition Administrative Agency".

2) A) According to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, since the request for the submission of a list of contact points to patients or the request for the submission of a list of contact points is necessary to be handled promptly at the time of such request, it can be viewed as "end" without 'documents'. However, it should be made that the other party is "the defendant's order under Article 59 (1) of the former Medical Service Act" by properly stating the basis for the request or the request (disposition administrative agency) and disposition (Article 59 (1) of the former Medical Service Act).

B) As seen earlier, at around 5,30, the Defendant issued an instruction to secure the list of contact points related to patients at the Mescopic response conference, etc. at around 5,30.30. However, according to the above facts of recognition, an epidemiological investigation officer did not disclose the request for submission of the list or the subject of the request (disposition) in the course of making a verbal request for the submission of the list No. 14 to the side of the hospital B, and did not indicate that the request or request was based on Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act. Furthermore, even if the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent several times from May 29 to June 3, 200, by specifying the request for cooperation in epidemiological investigations and the submission of the list, etc., from the side of the hospital B to the point of dispatch of the epidemiological investigation officer, the Defendant did not indicate the “the subject of the request for an epidemiological investigation” under Article 18(1) of the former Medical Service Act and did not state the “the subject of the request” as the order under Article 18(1) of the former Medical Service Act.

C) Therefore, the Epidemiological Investigation Officers cannot be deemed as the 'Defendant's order under Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant issued the above order to the B Hospital.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the imposition of the penalty surcharge in this case is unlawful since the grounds for the disposition are not recognized. Therefore, the remaining claims of the plaintiff should be revoked without examining them.

5. Whether the disposition rejecting the payment of compensation for losses of this case is legitimate

A. Relevant statutes

1) Article 70 of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Dec. 29, 2015) applies retroactively to a person who suffers from a loss due to mersa prior to the enforcement of the Act pursuant to Article 6 of the Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2015). According to Article 70(1) of the said Act, the Minister of Health and Welfare, the Mayor/Do Governor, and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall compensate for the loss incurred by a medical institution which provided medical treatment to patients with infectious diseases, patients with infectious diseases, etc. in accordance with measures taken under this Act, following deliberation and resolution by the Compensation Deliberation Committee for Loss Compensation under Article 70-2. According to Article 70(4) of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act and Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act, the subject of compensation for loss is the expenses incurred by the relevant medical institution in treating, treating, or isolation infected patients, patients with infectious diseases, etc., that is, the expenses incurred in using facilities, equipment, human resources, etc.

2) On the other hand, Article 70(3) of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act provides that "where a person who suffered a loss suffers or expands the loss due to a violation of the obligation to take measures under this Act or related Acts and subordinate statutes, the compensation may not be paid or the compensation may be reduced." Article 70(4) of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act, Article 28-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act provides that "where a person violates the direction and order under Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act concerning the type of the violation, which is the reason for exclusion from the payment of compensation for losses or reduction (Article 59(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act (Article 70(3) of the same Act)," "where an epidemiological investigation is conducted under Article 18(3) of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act, (6)" and Article 70(2) of the same Act provides that "where a person who suffered a loss fails to pay compensation for losses or reduce the amount of compensation for losses, whether the person directly claims the payment of compensation for losses."

B. According to the above provision regarding the Defendant’s main safety defense, the Defendant has the authority to pay or refuse compensation for losses under Article 70 of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act, but only must undergo deliberation and resolution by the Compensation Deliberation Committee in making the decision. As seen earlier, the Defendant directly rejected the payment of compensation for losses under his/her name in accordance with the above provision.

Therefore, since the defendant is an administrative agency which issued the disposition of this case and has the eligibility to be the defendant under the main sentence of Article 13(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the defendant's main defense to the safety is not accepted.

1) Whether the submission of the instant list constitutes a violation of the Defendant’s order under Article 59(1) of the former Medical Service Act

As examined earlier, there is a defendant's order under Article 59 (1) of the former Medical Service Act. Thus, it is not recognized that the plaintiff violated the defendant's order under the Medical Service Act.

2) Whether an act prohibited in conducting an epidemiological investigation pursuant to Article 18(3) of the former Infectious Disease Prevention Act constitutes a delay in submitting the instant list

A) Relevant regulations and legal principles

(1) Article 18(3) of the former Infectious Disease Prevention Act provides that no person shall refuse, interfere with, or evade an epidemiological investigation conducted by the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu without any justifiable reason. Article 81 of the same Act provides that any person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two million won if he/she violates the above provision. Meanwhile, Article 5 of the former Infectious Disease Prevention Act provides that medical personnel, medical institutions, and medical organizations under the Medical Act must actively cooperate in the duties of monitoring, preventing, controlling, and conducting epidemiological investigations of infectious diseases conducted by the State and local

(2) According to such relevant provisions, considering that the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the head of a local government is the head of the agency responsible for conducting an epidemiological investigation under Article 18(3) of the former Infectious Disease Prevention Act, medical institutions, etc. are obligated to actively cooperate in the epidemiological investigation pursuant to Article 5 of the former Infectious Disease Prevention Act, and the violation is not subject to criminal punishment unlike the case of violation of Article 18(3) of the former Infectious Disease Prevention Act, in principle, a medical institution, etc., upon receipt of a request from an administrative agency for an epidemiological investigation, shall not be deemed to have the duty to prepare and provide new data, such as a list of the patients suffering from infectious diseases beyond the scope of cooperation by providing the existing data, such as medical records held by the administrative agency. Thus, even if a medical institution, etc. did not comply with a request for the provision of new data or faithfully performs an epidemiological investigation conducted, it may not be deemed that such request constitutes a prohibited act in the course of an epidemiological investigation ( rejection, interference, and evasion of an epidemiological investigation).

B) Specific determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, although B Hospital completed the list of this case (including contact points) around 16:17 on May 31, 2005, it cannot be deemed as a refusal or interference with the epidemiological investigation prohibited under Article 18(3) of the former Infectious Disease Control Act solely based on the circumstance that B was delayed to an epidemiological investigation officer around 2:21:32 on June 2, 2002. Therefore, it is not recognized that the Plaintiff committed a prohibited act in the course of an epidemiological investigation under Article 18(3) of the former Infectious Disease Control Act.

(1) The reasons why the epidemiological investigation officer dispatched to B hospital and tried to secure the list of contact points of the patient No. 14 are to take necessary measures, such as informing the contact points of the patient of the possibility of being exposed to Bmers" and the matters of caution to prevent the spread of mers infection in order to prevent the spread of mers infectious diseases. Therefore, the list of contact points that the epidemiological investigation officer requested to B hospital was naturally called the list that includes contact points. Since the contact points of B hospital had been experienced in responding to the patient No. 14, it seems that the fact that the contact points are essential to secure contact points in the list of contact points of the patient was sufficiently known.

(2) With regard to the preparation of the list, B Hospital proposed that the scope of exposure patients should be set more broadly than the preexisting priority control point after consultation with the Director General of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and proposed that the scope of exposure patients should be set more broadly than the preexisting priority control point in consultation with the Director General of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, divided the group into the degree and type of contact, and provided the patient list, and actively cooperate in the duties to prevent the spread of mers, such as conducting necessary monitoring to the group not closely classified as the contact point. While preparing the list of contact points of the patients No. 14, B Hospital proposed that the epidemiological investigation officer have the authority to access the electronic medical record system, but it was not limited to giving the epidemiological investigation officer the authority to prepare and provide the list on the basis of the same type as that of the patient. In addition, the contact points of the patient No. 35 also demanded only some necessary contact points, such as the back of the list, and provided the list within prompt time.

(3) There are the following circumstances in the process of delaying the submission of the instant list. Considering that the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to view that: (a) providing the instant list (including the contact points) to the epidemiological investigation officers without contact, rather than the instant list (including the contact points); (b) providing another list (hereinafter referred to as the “mail list”) was conducted in intent to refuse or interfere with the epidemiological investigation; or (c) there were special circumstances to the extent that it can be deemed identical to

(A) Since May 30, 200, the epidemiological investigation officers continuously requested B Hospital No. 14 of the patient contact list to be submitted in preference to the patient contact list, but before June 2, 200, there is no other evidence supporting the request except the epidemiological investigation officers’ statement. At this time, the epidemiological investigation officers and the infectious disease control team N have given and received several copies of emails and letters, and there is no provision demanding contact numbers in the e-mail and text prior to June 2, 200. K made a statement that “at the time of the investigation, the Board of Audit and Inspection has no direction to change only contact numbers and addresses until June 2, 200.”

(B) Through the verification of medical records and monitoring of patients, the infection control team of the hospital B prepared the contact name list of patients including 14 items, including group, name, age, medical examination and treatment, department in charge, date and time of arrival and leaving room, patient location, sick situation, designation, main hospital, hospitalization day, discharge day, transfer day, central mobile time, registered nurse in charge, observation room's moving time, credit or organ moving time, exposure forecast time, etc. However, there was no contact list. The B hospital infection control team received contact information from the original team of the patient and received contact information on patients, and received contact information on patients from the patient. As such, the B hospital prepared a list of patients No. 14 and submitted a list of patients as two kinds, but it was not necessary to delete the list from the beginning, and there was no specific request to delete the list.

(C) On May 30, 200, the head of the office of the infection control office of the hospital B was requested by the Ministry of Health and Welfare to submit a list of contact numbers of 1,2 groups as eligible for facility isolation. The head of the office refers to the situation where a request for the submission of a list of contact numbers of patients was made 14 through various routes, such as an epidemiological investigation officer, and asked Q Q officer to leave the register. However, the head of the office did not understand the meaning of the list properly and clarify whether he received it. The head of the office, etc. of the B hospital’s M et al. seems to have misunderstood that the submission of the list was made only to Q Q2 officer after the above call. M on May 31, 200, the head of the office, etc. did not appear to have made such phone call to Q at the latest, but it did not appear to have been sufficiently known that Q would have been required to leave the hospital’s name, date and time of arrival, but did not appear to be included in the list.

(D) According to the e-mail sent by K around June 1, 200, the epidemiological investigation officers requested the hospital to supplement the matters necessary for the additional investigation, such as “the date of the first symptoms, heat and respiratory symptoms,” and “the date of birth, address, and telephone number items,” and did not explicitly require the hospital to submit a list including the contact details and address first. Epidemiological investigation officers stated that the above additional request was not the meaning of requiring the hospital’s self monitoring. However, in the hospital where the patient’s confidential contact person was experienced in self monitoring at the request of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meaning of the request may be differently accepted. In fact, the hospital continued to prepare a list by adding the patient information to “the 3 to 5 puplester,” while conducting self monitoring, and also the epidemiological investigation officers also knew that the “RB Hospital was directly exposed to the patient at the time of the investigation,” and it appears that it was 14 days for the patient to be submitted.

(E) On May 30, 30, Qu officer explicitly expressed that the contact information of the subject is necessary for the isolation of facilities, the Npt collected and immediately provided contact information. On June 2, 200, when an epidemiological investigation officer K requested the submission of the list of contact points explicitly, and on the same day, the Npt submitted the list including contact information on the same day when an epidemiological investigation officer’s request for the submission of the list containing basic information, such as verbal classification and contact information.

(F) It is difficult to view that the head of the infectious disease control office M intentionally delayed the submission of the list of this case on the grounds of civil petitioners' complaints, such as patient patients and their guardians, due to the circumstance that the head of the Messium at the B Hospital was discussed in the Council for Disease Control Measures, on the ground that the patient and his/her guardian's anxiety and compliance increase due to improper response by the head of the B Hospital and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, etc., the B Hospital did not intentionally delay the submission of the list of this case on the ground that there was a complaint by the civil petitioners, such as patient and his/her guardian, etc.

3) Whether the delay submission of the list of this case constitutes "direct relevance to the occurrence or expansion of the plaintiff's loss" and "serious cause"

In light of the following circumstances, even if the delay in the submission of the list of the Plaintiff constitutes a prohibited act in the course of an epidemiological investigation under Article 18(3) of the former Infectious Disease Prevention Act, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the delay in the submission of the list of this case directly related to the occurrence or expansion of losses incurred by the Plaintiff due to the treatment of Mess patients and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the delay.

A) The loss for which the Plaintiff filed a petition for compensation is the cost of facility construction for medical treatment, such as reduction of operating income, reduction of isolation medical personnel’s personnel expenses, and cost of negative pressure medical room, etc., which occurred from June 2015 to July 2015 when treating and isolationing patients from the hospital to the hospital, or due to the closure of the hospital to prevent the spread of mers.

B) From May 27 to May 29, 200, the list of this case was 14 patients (the second infections) who had been staying in the B Hospital, informing 3-5 sexually contacted patients of the possibility that they could be exposed to the B, and call attention to prevent the spread of infections. The "guardians" part of the list was excluded from the list subject to the preparation of the list. Accordingly, the submission of the delayed submission of the list of this case directly related to the occurrence or expansion of the damage caused to the Mes, and thus, the fourth infections occur due to the person (the third infections) infected in the Murs (the third infections) among the persons subject to the above list.

C) However, even upon receipt of the instant list on June 2, 200, the Defendant did not take measures to enter the list into the regional healthcare information system and notify the City/Do public health center thereof for up to 4 days. On June 3, 200, the Defendant took measures to monitor only some of the patients through the National Health Review and Assessment Service call center. According to the Messen response guidelines, measures such as contact with the confidential contact partners in the 3-5 group should be taken by the City/Do public health center, and the implementation began on June 7. As such, the Defendant did not err by failing to neglect 4 days even if the Defendant submitted the instant list, on the ground that the measures against the contact patients were not taken from time to time.

D) Of the 17th infection cases by patients with confidential contact of 3 to 5 groups asserted by the Defendant, most of the instant patients are patients with multiple infections who can find the cause of infections. The instant list No. 76, which caused multiple fourth infections, begins from June 5, 2015, and the health authorities received the instant list from the side of the B Hospital on June 2, 2015 (ordinary 5 days) and immediately rejected the possibility of preventing infections by patients of 3 to 5 group secret contacts (not later than June 7, 2015), if appropriate measures were withdrawn to patients with confidential contact of 3 to 3 to 5 group.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the delay submission of the list of this case does not constitute grounds for exclusion from the payment of compensation for damages, the rejection disposition of compensation for losses of this case is unlawful. The disposition should be revoked without examining the remainder of the plaintiff's remaining arguments.

6. Conclusion

The claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so accepted as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Hong-man

Note tin

1) Although the amendment was made by Act No. 13639 on December 29, 2015, it was made pursuant to Article 6 of the Addenda to the Infectious Disease Prevention Act ( December 29, 2015).

This shall also apply to persons who have suffered losses due to Marice prior to the enforcement of the law.

심급 사건

서울행정법원 2018.11.29.선고 2017구합63481

-서울고등법원 2020.1.22.선고 2018누77472

-대법원 2020.5.14.선고 2020두34049

참조조문

-감염병의 예방 및 관리에 관한 법률 제5조

-감염병의 예방 및 관리에 관한 법률 제18조 제3항

-감염병의 예방 및 관리에 관한 법률 제70조

-감염병의 예방 및 관리에 관한 법률 시행령 제18조

-감염병의 예방 및 관리에 관한 법률 시행령 제18조 제3항

-감염병의 예방 및 관리에 관한 법률 시행령 제28조의2 제1항