logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.06.01 2017가합16238
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 2011, the Plaintiff, as a doctor, changed the type of medical institution into “C convalescent Hospital” on December 14, 201 (hereinafter “C convalescent Hospital”) located in Kimcheon-si, as a doctor,

hereinafter referred to as “instant hospital”

(E) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) under a contract to acquire a facility, such as medical equipment, in KRW 1.2 billion, and operated by B’s spouse D.

(2) The Defendant concluded a contract to lease the above hospital building with the head of the above hospital from around that time. (2) The Defendant is a juristic person that conducts business, such as the payment of insurance benefit costs and the imposition of dues under the National Health Insurance Act.

B. On November 20, 2014, the Defendant notified the head of Daegu Northern Police Station of the fact that “The Defendant violated Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act by double operation of the F Hospital in Daegu and D jointly, and the instant hospital. The Plaintiff formally transferred the instant hospital to the Plaintiff, thereby aiding and abetting the instant hospital in violation of the Medical Service Act, and thus, sent the Plaintiff, etc. to the Plaintiff on November 24, 2014.” (2) On November 24, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to the effect that “The Plaintiff, etc. will be indicted upon the disposition.”

3) On January 22, 2015, the Defendant again notified the Plaintiff on November 24, 2015 that “the disposition to suspend the payment of medical care benefit costs as of November 24, 2014” was revoked. However, upon an investigation conducted by an investigative agency, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant hospital would refuse the payment of medical care benefit costs starting November 24, 2014 with respect to the fact that there was a violation of Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act.” (C) The Defendant, including the judgment of innocence, etc. against the Plaintiff, belongs to the Daegu District Prosecutor’s Office to which the Plaintiff

arrow