logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.04.29 2015구합21010
의료업무정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

A. From January 5, 2012, the Plaintiff is a person who operates a medical institution with a trade name, “Chansung-gu Council member” (hereinafter “instant Council member”).

B. On January 5, 2012, on the Internet homepage (hereinafter “the homepage of this case”) the “Chin Won, 1926 traditional Hanwon, Dogwon, Specialized in the Unclaimed Disease?” (hereinafter “instant act”). On the “counseling and reservation” column, any person opened a “re-examination” column and allowed patients to publish the treatment experience fence (hereinafter “the instant act”). The “re-examination” column began with the operation on the right side of the instant oriental medicine, and it started three days after the instant oriental medicine was transferred to the left side, and it was diagnosed that the instant oriental medicine was cut out for a period of three months, and it was diagnosed that the instant medicine was cut out for a few months, and that it was not recovered from the “re-examination” column, and it was not recovered from the “re-examination surgery.”

C. On November 4, 2014, the Defendant run a medical advertisement in violation of Article 56(2)2 (the instant act) and subparagraph 7 (the instant act) of the Medical Service Act with respect to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Defendant advertised in violation of Article 56(2)2 (the instant act) and subparagraph 7 (the instant act) of the same paragraph, Article 64(1)5 and Article 68 of the Medical Service Act, Article 4 and [Attachment] of

2. Individual criteria:

Based on subparagraphs 20 and 22, the suspension of business was 2 months and 15 days.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against this. On December 19, 2014, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission (Seoul Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission) imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 16,875,000 on the basis of the Plaintiff’s sales revenue of KRW 300,087,230 in the year 2013.

arrow