The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, according to the National Health Insurance Act, Article 41(2) of the National Health Insurance Act, and Article 8(2) of the Regulations on the Standards for Medical Care Benefits for National Health Insurance, the National Health Insurance’s Schedule of Non-Health Insurance Activity’s Benefits and relative value points for benefits (hereinafter “instant public notice”), a public announcement of the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the Ministry of Health and Welfare under Article 8(2) of the Regulations, a dietitian shall be calculated according to the number of full-time dietitians and cooks belonging to the relevant health care institution, and the selective group’s addition and direct addition shall be calculated when a dietitian belonging to the relevant health care institution is at least

In such a case, whether a dietitian or cook (hereinafter “nutrition, etc.”) belongs to the relevant medical care institution shall be determined not by whether the medical care institution has entered into a formal work contract with dietitians, etc., but by whether the medical care institution actually employs a dietitians, etc. and directs and supervises them. Furthermore, in order to determine this, it shall comprehensively take into account various circumstances, including whether the medical care institution actually directs and supervises the relevant dietitians, etc. and manages the relevant dietitians, etc., and whether the medical care institution actually bears personnel expenses, such as dietitians, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do9497, Jan. 14, 2016). In full view of the circumstances in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant, who is the head of the said hospital, was paid additional charges, etc. as if he/she directly supervised and supervised the dietitians, etc. of the restaurant in the E-convalescent hospital.

The decision was determined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is necessary by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for the payment of food and additional charges for dietitians selected under the instant public notice.