logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.20 2016구합64341
업무정지처분취소
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 obtained a herb doctor’s license on March 16, 2006, and established and operated an oriental medical doctor’s license from November 8, 2013, with the trade name of “Chanwon” in Ansan-si B (hereinafter “the instant oriental medical doctor”).

B. On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment suspending the sentence of a fine of KRW 3,000,000 for the following criminal facts at the Suwon District Court (2015DaMa5333) (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 5, 2015.

The Plaintiff is an oriental medical doctor who operates one of the three mutually named members in Ansan-si, the Plaintiff is an oriental medical doctor who operates the three.

No person other than those who have obtained a license for medical technicians shall engage in medical technicians.

Nevertheless, at around 10:40 on April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff employed D and E who did not obtain a license for physical therapy, and had F et al. perform physical therapy (hereinafter “instant treatment”) for patients, including heat treatment, electricity treatment, pelvis correction, and physical therapy.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's employee D and E worked as medical technician without a medical technician's license with respect to the plaintiff's work.

C. On the other hand, on May 13, 2015, the Defendant notified the head of the Ansan Police Station of the fact that an investigation is in progress due to the above criminal facts, and planned and proceeded with the procedure for the prior notification of the disposition, and did not accept the Defendant’s request demanding the postponement of an administrative disposition until the result of the trial, and did not take an administrative disposition. As such, the instant judgment became final and conclusive, and on March 7, 2016, issued a disposition for two months of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with respect to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as follows:

C. A [Ground for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1 to 13 (including each number), and arguments.

arrow