Whether the dismissal of an officer under Article 24 of the Medical Insurance Act shall give an opportunity to defend himself/herself (negative)

When the Do governor entrusted by the Minister of Health and Welfare orders the dismissal of an officer of the medical insurance association pursuant to Article 24 of the Medical Insurance Act, the Minister shall not necessarily give the officer concerned an opportunity to defend himself.

Article 24 of the Medical Insurance Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Daegu High Court Decision 87Gu53 delivered on February 24, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. First, we examine Plaintiff 1’s grounds of appeal.

The court below recognized the facts of the judgment and ruled that the dismissal order against the plaintiff 1 is legitimate. In light of the records, the court below's findings and determination are just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to abuse of discretionary power, such as the theory of lawsuit.

When the Do governor entrusted by the Minister of Health and Welfare orders the dismissal of an officer of the medical insurance association pursuant to Article 24 of the Medical Insurance Act, it does not necessarily provide the officer concerned with an opportunity to defend himself/herself, so in ordering the dismissal of this case, the defendant's failure to give the plaintiff 1 an opportunity to defend himself/herself cannot be deemed to be unlawful. The decision of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

The court below held that the defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is only a ground for dismissal and the remaining facts are not recognized. However, in light of the records of the process of cooking the evidence conducted in the above decision of the court below, the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. The appeal that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of discretionary power is an attack against the judgment of the court below on the premise that the court below did not recognize it.

3. Therefore, all appeals by Plaintiffs 1 and Defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)