Cases applicable to false or exaggerated advertisements under Article 46 of the Medical Service Act.

With respect to career and method of medical treatment, if an advertisement is made by printing and distributing printed articles that do not comply with Article 33 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act, and a medical member who is not a hospital under the Medical Service Act is indicated as a hospital, and if an advertisement is indicated as “the director, director, medical specialist,” without separately indicating the psychotropic surgery, which is a specialized department, as “the director, director, and medical specialist, of the dental surgery,” and instead indicating as “the director, director, and medical specialist, of the dental surgery,” it is obvious that such advertisement constitutes false and exaggerated advertisements and violates the provisions of Article 46(1) and (3) of the Medical Service Act.

Articles 46 and 55 of the Medical Service Act, Article 33 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 82 Gu28 delivered on July 20, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's establishment of △△△ Integrated Hospital, the head of △△△ integrated hospital, △△ Hospital, △△ Hospital, △△ Hospital, △△ Hospital, and △△ Hospital, etc., with a view to the following experience and experience in opening a special optical-ray treatment center, which is a specialized hospital for all patient in spine and spine, and that the defendant's establishment of a special optical-ray treatment center, which is a specialized hospital for all kinds of hospital and spine patients, and that the defendant's distribution of 200 neighboring house by printing 1,00 copies of ○○○○○, the first president of the hospital and the director of the hospital, which are called "the plaintiff of the hospital," and the fact that the plaintiff did not display 20 copies of 200 neighboring house at his domicile, which constitutes a violation of Article 46, Article 51 (1) 5, 241 (Ordinance 1, 2198) of the Medical Service Act, and thus, the plaintiff's specialized hospital and the medical care department.

Article 36 of the Medical Service Act provides that the medical care area shall be indicated in accordance with the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and accordingly, Article 30 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act provides that the name of the specialized care area shall be indicated in the indication board of the specialized care area: Provided, That in the case of a medical specialist, the name of the specialized care area other than the specialized care area may be indicated in accordance with Article 55 (3) of the Act, and the name of the specialized care area other than the specialized care area. Meanwhile, Article 46 (1) of the Medical Service Act provides that a medical corporation may make false and exaggerated advertisements concerning the medical care duties of a medical institution, and Article 36 (3) prohibits the public advertisement, c) by stating the specific medical institution or specific medical person’s skills, method of medical treatment, pictures, printed materials, broadcasting, design, etc., and Article 30 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act provides that if the medical institution fails to display the name of the medical care area in charge, gender and its specialized care area, its name and location and telephone number of the medical institution, etc.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant's disposition of this case against the plaintiff pursuant to Article 51 of the Medical Service Act and Article 241 of the Ministry of Health and Welfare's Directives 241 is legitimate is justified and it cannot be viewed as unlawful in the course of leading up to this legitimate process, and it cannot be viewed as an independent opinion that denies the fact-finding, which belongs to the exclusive authority of the court below, and thus, cannot be adopted.

The defendant's disposition of this case is in violation of Article 46 of the Medical Service Act because so-called "the plaintiff's disposition of this case" is in violation of Article 51 (1) 5 of the same Act and Article 241 (1) of the Ministry of Health and Welfare's Directive 241-4 of the above Directive is clearly based on the facts duly established by the court below. Thus, Article 5 (1)-4 of the above Directive 241-2 of the above Directive provides that "an exaggerated advertisement is made in violation of Article 46 of the Medical Service Act," so the defendant's disposition of this case shall be subject to business suspension for February and March. In this case, the defendant's disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be erroneous, and in this case, the above Directive 241 of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs can only be subject to warning or corrective instruction only once, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no ground for misunderstanding of the provisions of the Medical Service Act, the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)