Plaintiff (Law Firm Barun, Attorney Park Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Health and Welfare (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

April 2, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap1558 decided December 20, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked, and the defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of penalty surcharge against the plaintiff on April 8, 2011.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the part added or modified under paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional or modified parts

○○ Rule 5 of the first instance judgment’s “Review Guidelines” (hereinafter referred to as “instant Guidelines”) shall be added following the third instance judgment.

○○ In the third through 8th of the first instance judgment, “(the name shall be the same as the entry of “B” in subparagraph 2)” shall be changed to “(the name shall be the same as the entry in the attached list).”

○ Change of the first instance court’s 6th to 7th 6th tier is as follows.

(2) misunderstanding of facts

A) The Plaintiff conducted a surgery using artificial tape only when it was determined that the patient was mainly showing the symptoms of tension or pytension, and the pressure of leakage is less than 120 cmH2O according to the instant notice after conducting a epidemology test for the patient at home, and the Plaintiff did not perform the surgery for the patient who did not fall under the above cases by manipulating the results of the epidemology test of this case.

B) At least one original is the same 1 set of the main stream of the instant case’s epidemiology, which is the same for each of the two main units of the instant case. The patients listed in the attached list are identical for two or three persons among each other, and at least one of them shall be deemed as the principal, and thus, they cannot be said to have been operated.

C) Even if the Plaintiff claimed expenses for benefits by attaching the results of the examination of another patient to the medical record, this is not due to the fact that the pressure of leakage was measured at least 120 cmH2O as a result of the examination of leakage pressure in the instant case, but it is inevitable for the Defendant to use the results of the examination of another patient in order to avoid reducing the expenses for benefits based on the instant guidelines in the event that the pressure of leakage occurred or the ex officio form was good. The Defendant did not prove that the Plaintiff claimed the medical care benefits for the patients whose high pressure of leakage was above 120 cmH2O in violation of the instant notice, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim for expenses for benefits is unreasonable.

○ Change of the first instance judgment from the 5th to the 6th 14th eth eth son.

2) Whether mistake of facts is erroneous

Unless special circumstances exist, such as where it is difficult to take the confirmation form as evidence of specific facts due to forced preparation against the will of the originator or lack of the content thereof, the mere evidence of the confirmation form cannot be readily denied in the course of conducting a field investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002).

(4) In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was difficult to conduct a new inspection of the Plaintiff’s name and 24 p.m. (this case’s p.m. 2) on the condition that it would be difficult for the Defendant to conduct a new inspection of the Plaintiff’s name and 2 p.m. (this case’s p.m. 4 p. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. s. c. c. c. s. s.).

B) The Plaintiff asserts that at least 21 out of the list of patients listed in the separate sheet is the original ones. As such, the Plaintiff considered the following circumstances, namely, ① according to Nonparty 2’s above statement, the method of manipulating the results of the ethical examination of the instant case, which is: (a) according to the method of substituting the results of other patient’s inspection measured at less than 120ccH2O; and (b) using the ethic function, the method of indicating less than 120ccH2O; and (c) Nonparty 2, as Nonparty 4, indicated in the separate sheet No. 43 patients listed in the police investigation, were all of the patients indicated in the separate sheet No. 21, 45, and 46, using the aforementioned methods, using the method of replacing the results of other patient’s inspection measured at less than 120ccH2O; and (d) Nonparty 2, as a result of Nonparty 2’s investigation, there is no evidence that Nonparty 2’s assertion that the aforementioned method of e’s statement was an error in the above list No.

C) Although the Plaintiff’s medical records were filed in the medical records, the Plaintiff alleged that all the patients in question met the requirements of less than 120 cm H2O and performed a gold operation. Thus, the Defendant’s burden of proving that these patients did not meet the requirements of the necessary leakage pressure is the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du6981, 698, Sept. 11, 2008). However, the Plaintiff’s investigation results did not constitute “speed water and other improper methods,” and the Plaintiff’s proof that it did not meet the requirements of the aforementioned medical records or that it did not meet the requirements of the examination results for less than 120 mH2O for the purpose of using the patient’s other examination results as a substitute for the patient’s 46 patients listed in the separate list, and thus, the Plaintiff’s proof that the patient was paid for less than 20 m2 as a result of the examination that it did not meet the requirements of the examination results for less than 1 m3 patients.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Yellow-Jil (Presiding Judge)