1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a person who works as a doctor at the Department of Youth C (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”) in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

As between January 26, 2011 and March 30, 2011, the Plaintiff was supplied with prescription drugs, such as ethyl ethyl ethyl dye, sulfur dye, etc., five times in total, by a trade-related pharmaceutical company (hereinafter “dispact-related drugs”).

Although the Plaintiff prepared a tax invoice and a statement of transaction to the effect that the above drugs were supplied to KRW 6,595,000, the Plaintiff was paid only KRW 4,304,000 for the drug at a discount of KRW 2,291,000 for the drug price.

In relation to the above act, the Plaintiff was investigated into violation of the Medical Service Act on the ground that the Plaintiff obtained at a discounted rate of the supply price at an unreasonably discounted rate of the above 2,291,000 won in return for promising to use (adopted) the above drug, and obtained an investigation for violation of the Medical Service Act, and was ordered to suspend indictment from the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office on May 10, 2013.

On June 18, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 66(1)1 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 10565, Apr. 7, 2011; hereinafter “former Medical Service Act”); Article 32(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act; Article 4 [Attachment Table] of the former Rules on Administrative Measures Concerning Medical Services (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 62, Jun. 20, 201; hereinafter “former Rules on Administrative Measures Concerning Medical Services”); and Article 4 [Attachment Table] 2(a)35 of the former Rules on Administrative Measures Concerning Medical Services (hereinafter “former Rules on Administrative Measures Concerning Medical Services”) by deeming that the Plaintiff received money and valuables from the Plaintiff in return for the supply of drugs (the Defendant’s ground for the instant disposition is “the ground for Disposition No. 1”).

In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s aforementioned act constitutes a case where the Plaintiff acquired unfair economic benefits during the lawsuit of this case.