beta
Text
1. Defendant’s reimbursement decision of medical care benefit costs on December 27, 2018, KRW 1,700,111,690 against the Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, a doctor, opened a “D Council member” (hereinafter “instant Council member”) in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government in the name of another doctor, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, and operated until December 6, 2016.
B. On December 27, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “According to the investigation results of the Seoul Regional Police Agency and the detailed details of the case of non-prosecution of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, the Plaintiff was in violation of Article 4(2) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 14438, Dec. 28, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) from November 28, 2014 to December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff decided to recover KRW 1,70,111,690 of the medical care benefit cost claimed in relation to the medical treatment performed by the instant member (hereinafter “instant recovery decision”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety
A. On November 28, 2019, the Defendant revoked the instant recovery decision and notified the Plaintiff on the same day according to the result of the relevant administrative litigation.
The defendant does not dispute the fact that the plaintiff's obligation to the defendant according to the restitution decision of this case does not exist, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
B. Determination 1) In principle, there is no legal uncertainty between the parties as to the legal relationship, and thus there is no benefit in confirmation. However, if the Defendant asserted the legal relationship and claimed that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have no benefit in confirmation solely on the ground that the Defendant did not dispute ex post facto legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da74130, Jan. 15, 2009).