beta
Text
1. On March 28, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition to notify the Plaintiff of unjust enrichment.
2...
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 31, 2008, a doctor B, along with a doctor C, opened a hospital under the name of “E” (hereinafter “E”) with the specialized department D in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Ansan-si, A as the department of internal and external visual image process, and obtained permission from the Defendant to establish the medical institution for the instant hospital. On October 17, 201, the founder of the instant hospital changed the medical institution into B’s sole name.
B. From August 11, 2010, the Plaintiff, a doctor, has been working as a principal in the instant hospital. The name of the founder of the instant hospital was changed to that of the Plaintiff and B on August 21, 2012, and was changed to that of the Plaintiff on August 24, 2012.
C. On March 28, 2016, on the ground that the instant hospital was established in violation of Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act, the Defendant issued a notice of collection that the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment of KRW 217,503,190 pursuant to Article 23 of the Medical Care Assistance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
Meanwhile, B was indicted on the charge of violating Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act by employing the Plaintiff at a monthly rate of KRW 30 million from August 24, 2012 to November 20, 2013, and establishing and operating the instant hospital in the name of the Plaintiff. On April 15, 2014, upon receiving a judgment of conviction (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Dadan1402, 1435, hereinafter referred to as Daegu District Court Decision 2014No1391, Sept. 18, 2014). However, on September 18, 2014, B appealed upon receiving a judgment of dismissal of the appeal (Seoul District Court 2014No1391, Daegu District Court 201). However, the appeal was withdrawn on November 28, 2014.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), Eul's entries and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition that the Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff is unlawful as follows, without any legal basis or by abusing discretionary power. A)