1. The Defendant’s disposition of recovering medical care benefit costs of KRW 249,813,070 against the Plaintiff on December 22, 2017 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B initially filed a lawsuit claiming the cancellation of the Defendant’s disposition of restitution of medical care benefit costs against the principal, which was withdrawn on April 2, 2018.

On October 25, 2012, as a dentist, a “D Council member” was established in Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, 2012.

B. On March 5, 2014, B, while operating D Council members, filed a report on the establishment of “F Council members” in the name of the Plaintiff, a dentist, Gyeongcheon-gun E (hereinafter “instant Council members”).

C. Around September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff, employed by B, commenced medical treatment at the instant member, but retired on or around October 1, 2016.

After that, B employed a dentist and operated the instant Council member in the name of G, and closed the instant Council member on September 13, 2017.

On December 22, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act, the Defendant notified the instant member of a decision to recover KRW 249,813,070, which was already paid to the instant member based on Article 57(1) of the National Health Insurance Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. For the following reasons, the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful.

1) Even if the Plaintiff established and operated the instant council member in violation of Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act, the instant council member constitutes a medical care institution under the National Health Insurance Act in accordance with the obligatory designation system as a medical care institution, as a hospital established by a medical person. In the event of the establishment of a non-medical institution (violation of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act), the medical institution’s double establishment of medical institutions (violation of Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act) compared to the occurrence of serious risks to national health due to non-qualified medical practice.