All appeals are dismissed.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “2. Incheon District Court Branch on November 14, 2013.”

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant B and C’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the Defendants’ violation of the Medical Service Act, the main text of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act provides that “no person, other than a person falling under any of the following subparagraphs, may establish a medical institution.” Under each subparagraph, “a doctor, dentist, oriental medicine doctor, or midwife, State or local government, non-profit corporation established under the Civil Act or any special Act, quasi-government organization established under the Act on the Management and Operation of Public Institutions, local medical center established under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Local Medical Centers, or the Korea Veterans Welfare and Healthcare Corporation established under the Korea Veterans Welfare and Healthcare Corporation Act” is limited to the Defendants’ violation of the Medical Service Act. The purpose of the above provision is to protect and promote the health of the people by strictly restricting the establishment of a medical institution to medical personnel with medical expertise, or a corporation, institution, etc. with

(2) Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act provides that “The act of opening and reporting a medical institution under the name of a lawful medical institution by investing necessary funds by the general public, who is not qualified as a medical person, is the act of opening and operating a medical institution under the name of a qualified medical person.” Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the act of opening and reporting a medical institution under the name of a person who is not a medical person, is the act of opening and operating a medical institution, and the act of opening and operating the medical institution was in violation of the main sentence

or a medical person who is the title holder of the report of establishment has directly performed medical practice.

In other words, it is not different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do3227, Dec. 14, 1982). Such a legal doctrine is a consumer cooperative established by the Consumer Cooperatives Act (hereinafter “Consumer Cooperatives Act”) that explicitly permits medical business.