1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A’s KRW 392,894,587 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 9, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and engaged in the industrial accident compensation insurance business on commission by the Minister of Employment and Labor.

B. On December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) designated the D Hospital located in C as a medical institution responsible for the medical care for workers suffering from occupational accidents (hereinafter “industrial accident insurance-related medical institution”); and (b) paid the D Hospital totaling KRW 392,894,587 as medical care benefit costs at the request of the D Hospital from April 23, 2009 to September 7, 2009.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, and the purport of the plaintiff's argument in the whole argument is that defendant A was not a medical person, and thus, the defendant A borrowed the name of the defendant B, a doctor, and established and operated a hospital without being entitled to establish a medical institution, and received KRW 392,894,587 in total as medical care benefit costs by claiming for medical care benefit costs under the Industrial

Such acts of the Defendants constitute joint tort, and medical care benefit costs received by the Defendants constitute unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the tort and return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

Specifically, Defendant A is obligated to pay the medical care benefit cost, KRW 392,894,587, and delay damages that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff; and Defendant B is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 15,772,929, and delay damages, respectively, excluding the amount that the Plaintiff has already secured the executive title with the Plaintiff in collaboration with Defendant A.

Judgment

Article 3 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 9906, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) defines a medical institution as “place where a medical person engages in medical or assistance in child care for the public or a large number of people,” and Articles 33(2), 66(1)2 and 87(1)2 of the former Medical Service Act stipulate that “a medical person is engaged in medical or assistance in child care for the public or a large number of people.”