1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The basic facts of the claim: ① the Defendant and B agreed to establish and operate a pharmacy by lending the name of a pharmacist to another person; ② the Defendant invested KRW 30 million in accordance with the above agreement; ② the Plaintiff, under the condition that he pays KRW 3.5 million per month to C who is a pharmacist, opened a pharmacy in the name of "E pharmacy" in the name of "E pharmacy"; and registered its establishment to the competent authority pursuant to Article 20 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; ③ the Defendant, along with B, directly operated the above pharmacy from May 2, 2008 to March 14, 2012; ④ the Plaintiff did not have any dispute between November 26, 2008 to March 19, 2012 with the above pharmacy and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Industrial Accident Insurance Act"); the Defendant did not provide the drug at KRW 4936,460,460, and provided the drug at KRW 301,390,000 after the final judgment in collusion 230130,39.

2. The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act strictly prohibits a person, other than a pharmacist or herb pharmacist, to establish and manage a pharmacy, by limiting the qualification of a pharmacy founder to a pharmacist or herb pharmacist (Article 20). If a pharmacy founder is unable to manage the pharmacy, he/she shall designate a pharmacist or herb pharmacist to act for him/her (Article 21). If a pharmacy founder is unable to manage the pharmacy, he/she shall be punished (Article 95(1)2).

On the other hand, the Industrial Accident Insurance Act allows the plaintiff to pay medical care benefits to the pharmacy registered pursuant to Article 20 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.