logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.12.18 2018구합50138
장기요양급여비용환수처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operates the “B medical care center” (hereinafter “instant institution”) under the Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged Act, which is a long-term care institution for the Aged. The number of inmates of the instant institution is 75.

B. From October 30, 2017 to November 2, 2011, the Defendant conducted a field investigation with respect to the instant institution, and thereafter, on January 16, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff for long-term care benefits pursuant to Article 43 of the Public Notice on the Standards for Providing Long-Term Care Benefits and the Calculation of Expenses for Long-Term Care Benefits (Notice of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 2015-23, hereinafter “Notice of Long-Term Care Benefits”) to the manager of the instant institution, which fell short of the monthly working hours prescribed in Article 49 of the Public Notice on the Standards for Providing Long-Term Care Benefits and the Calculation of Expenses for Long-Term Care Benefits (Notice of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 2015-23, hereinafter “Public Notice of Long-Term Care Benefits”), even if the Plaintiff failed to meet the standards for imposing additional placement of human resources necessary for adding expenses to the elderly care benefits by fraudulent or other unjust means, from August 2015 to November 16.

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case"). The monthly amount of recovery of benefits provided (won) shall be April 10, 2015, 212,840, 247, 960 April 10, 2016, 140, 570, 970, 447, 780, 764, 364, 10,146, 350, 350, 687, 520, 9, 30, 80, 80, 215, 840, 8710, 47, 970, 106, 10, 864, 10, 10, 365, 106, 10, 367, 467, 286, 207, 167, 106, 367, 475, 2768

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion No. 1 does not exist.

arrow