Plaintiff 1 and 12 others (Law Firm Dongdong, Attorneys Park Yong-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Mets Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and 15 others

Hyundai Cargo Insurance Co., Ltd.

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Inn & Law, Attorney So-gil et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 30, 2019

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Gahap13347 Decided September 8, 2017

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following amount of order shall be revoked.

The Defendants indicated in the attached Table 1 “Defendant 1” shall pay each of the Plaintiffs indicated in the “Plaintiff 2” column of the same Table to each of the Plaintiffs as indicated in the “Defendant 1” column of the same Table, and the amount calculated by 5% per annum from each day to September 27, 2019, and 15% per annum from each day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals against the defendants are dismissed.

3. 40% of the total litigation costs are borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. The part concerning the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs is revoked. Each Defendants listed in the attached Table 1 List 1 “Defendant 1” shall pay each of the plaintiffs listed in the “Plaintiff 2” column of the same Table, and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from each day to the day of full payment (including the day on which a copy of the No. 3 complaint is served) to each of the plaintiffs listed in the “Plaintiff 2” column of the same Table, and the “the day on which a copy of the No. 3 complaint is served,” written in the same Table, respectively, to each of them (the plaintiffs reduced the claim in this court as

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiffs are willing to operate a film department member, and the defendants are insurance companies or mutual aid business operators (hereinafter referred to as "insurance companies, etc.").

(b) Changes in motor vehicle insurance medical fees and their payment procedures;

(a) Motor vehicle insurance medical fees (medical fees);

Where a medical institution under the Medical Service Act receives expenses incurred in the medical treatment of a person who suffered an accident caused by the operation of a motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "motor vehicle accident patient") as insurance money (including mutual aid money) from an insurance company, etc., the amount applying the relevant provisions of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation") shall be the motor vehicle insurance medical fees (hereinafter referred to as "motor vehicle accident insurance medical fees") and such amount shall be "motor vehicle accident insurance

(2) Changes in the procedures for payment of medical fees resulting from outpatient treatment;

A) A medical institution such as the Plaintiffs filed a claim for medical fees directly with an insurance company, etc. in the event that the medical institution received a request from another medical institution for medical treatment of an in-patient and conducted video diagnosis, and the insurance company, etc. has dealt with such medical fees by examining whether it is appropriate to review its own register or by going through the procedure

B) As Article 12-2(a) of the Automobile Loss Compensation Act enters into force on August 23, 2012, an insurance company, etc. may entrust the review and adjustment of medical fees to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, which is a specialized review agency prescribed by Presidential Decree. On June 4, 2013, the head of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service publicly announced the preparation of detailed guidelines for the payment of medical fees for non-patient outpatient medical fees as stated in the following 3-A, and provided that medical institutions, other than medical institutions, may claim medical fees (Article 2013-85 of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service’s announcement; hereinafter “instant announcement”).

C) After the public announcement of this case, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, where a medical institution that provided medical treatment to a traffic accident patient at the request of another medical institution, requests the payment of medical fees directly, has refused the examination.

D) Meanwhile, the medical institution which requested the medical treatment of a traffic accident patient filed with the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service for medical fees for out-of-patient treatment, and paid them to the medical institution providing the medical treatment. However, the above medical fees were calculated as one’s income and paid taxes to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, which did not claim medical fees for out-of-patient treatment. In such a case, the medical institution providing the medical treatment was in a state of not receiving the medical fees.

C. Plaintiffs’ claim for medical fee payment

1) The plaintiffs did not claim the payment of medical fees for out-of-patient medical treatment to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, but the plaintiffs claimed the payment of medical fees to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service directly.

2) The Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service rendered a decision on the impossibility of review and the revocation of review on the grounds that the Plaintiffs were not the claimant as prescribed in the instant public notice.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking direct medical fee payment with the insurance company, etc. after receiving the aforementioned decision of revocation of the review from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, and after receiving the medical examination and Assessment Service, for the cases for which the insurance company did not claim medical fee payment (the details of the Plaintiffs’ specific claim are as shown in

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5 through 30, 33 through 36 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The assertion

The plaintiffs claim medical fees from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, and there is no right to directly claim them against the defendants, and the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

In addition, if a medical institution claims medical fees to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service and has an objection to the result of the review, it shall file a lawsuit within 30 days from the date of receiving the notification of the result of the review. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case after 30 days from the date of receiving the notification of the result of review, even if they did not claim medical fees from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service or

B. Determination

1) In a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party is a person who asserts his/her right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether there is a right to demand performance or not, must be proved through the deliberation of the merits (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005, etc.).

On the other hand, there is no law that limits the plaintiffs' standing in relation to the plaintiffs' claim for medical fees. The issue of whether the plaintiffs can claim medical fees directly against the defendants should be determined through the review of the merits as to whether there is the right to claim performance.

2) Article 19(1) and (3) of the Automobile Loss Act provides that the Medical Fee Dispute Resolution Council may request an examination within 30 days from the date the result of the review by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service is notified, and that if the review is not requested within this period, it shall be deemed that the content requested by a medical institution or the result of the review is agreed upon on the date the period expires (Article 19(1) and (3). If the party who received the notification of the review decision by the above Review and Assessment Service regarding the above request for review is subject to the determination by the Council, it shall be deemed that the parties have agreed on the same contents as the decision made by the Review and Assessment Service within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notification, and if the party fails to institute a lawsuit within 30 days from

However, each of the above provisions is merely about the procedure for filing medical fees or the scope of the claim(s). In other words, the matters to be determined within the merits are determined, and even if the agreement between the parties is legal fiction, there is no basis to interpret that the act of filing a lawsuit itself is limited since it has the same effect as judicial compromise. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for the payment of medical fees cannot be viewed as unlawful on the grounds of each of

3) As above, the Defendants’ assertion on the safety defense is dismissed as it concerns the matters to be determined through the review of the merits.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Relevant provisions

1) The method of automobile loss

(1) Where a policyholder, etc. is liable to compensate for medical fees under Article 3, such victim may request an insurer, etc. to pay medical fees, etc. directly pursuant to Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. In such cases, an insurer, etc. may request the medical institution to pay the amount of medical fees directly. In such cases, the victim may request the insurer, etc. to pay the medical fees directly. (1) Where the policyholder, etc. or the victim under the latter part of Article 10 (1) becomes aware of the occurrence of the traffic accident caused by other reasons, the insurer, etc. shall, without delay, notify the medical institution which provides the relevant medical treatment of the intention to pay medical fees and the payment limit thereof according to the standards publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Note 1)

2) Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Loss Act

(1) A person who intends to request the payment of insurance money or mutual aid money (hereinafter referred to as "insurance money, etc.") pursuant to Article 10 (1) of the Act, or to request the payment of advance payment pursuant to Article 11 (1) of the Act, which is included in the main sentence of Article 7 (Procedures for Requesting the Payment of Insurance Money, etc.) (1) of the Act, shall submit to an insurer, etc. a written request stating the following matters:

Note 2)

3) Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Liability Act

(1) Where an insurer, etc. has entrusted affairs of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (hereinafter referred to as the "Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service") pursuant to Article 12-2 (1) of the Act and Article 11-2 of the Decree, medical institutions shall file a claim for medical fees with the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (hereinafter referred to as the "Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service"). (1) Upon receipt of a claim for medical fees under Article 6-2, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service shall examine whether the details of the claim meet the standards for medical fees under Article 15 (1) of the Act.

4) Regulations on the review of medical fees (Public notice by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport)

The applicant for medical fees under Article 4 (Appellants) or the notification of the details of the examination and provision of body examinations included in the main sentence shall be the representative of the relevant medical institution. Article 20 (Other Guidelines for Preparation) (1) of theo shall comply with the Guidelines for Preparation of Documents 1 in the case of a claim for medical fees in writing. (2) Where a claim for medical fees or notification of the details of the examination and supply of body examinations is made through information and communications network, the Guidelines for Preparation of Documents 2 shall apply.

5) The instant public notice

A. The summary of the statement of medical fees included in the main text o Ⅲ. 2. A. The summary of the statement of medical fees is as follows: (a) other items to be prepared in detail; and (e) other items of medical fees are requested to be provided to another medical institution for medical treatment. If the medical treatment is requested to another medical institution, the medical institution that provided the medical treatment may also claim the medical fee at the request. In such cases, the unit price of the medical institution that provided the medical treatment upon request shall be applied, and the additional rate for each type of medical institution shall be applied in a lump sum

B. Requirements for claiming medical fees

According to the relevant laws and regulations mentioned above, in order for medical institutions that have provided medical treatment to patients suffering from traffic accidents upon request of another medical institution for medical treatment, they shall file a claim for the payment with the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, but if it is impossible to proceed with the procedure for subsequent claim for payment due to refusal of review by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, insurance companies, etc. may claim direct medical fees, but it is not possible to immediately file a claim for the payment with the insurance company, etc. without the procedure

(1) Article 12(1) of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that an insurance company, etc. may immediately inform a medical institution that treats a traffic accident patient of whether the patient wishes to pay medical fees and the limit of the payment thereof (Article 12(1)). A medical institution that is notified by an insurance company, etc. of the intent to pay medical fees and the limit of the payment thereof may claim medical fees from the insurance company, etc. in accordance with the standards publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Article 12(2)). This is a legal right recognized to a medical institution on the basis of a traffic accident patient’s direct right to claim against the insurance company, etc.,

(2) If a medical institution claims medical fees for an insurance company, etc., the insurance company, etc. shall, in principle, examine and pay the details of the claim to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. However, the insurance company, etc. may entrust the review to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. In such a case, the Health Insurance and Assessment Service is performing the review of medical fees on behalf of the insurance company, etc. according to the contract with the insurance company, etc., so if the Health Insurance and Assessment Service rejects the review itself, it is not different from the case where the substance is not entrusted by the insurance company, etc..

(3) Where a medical institution is dissatisfied with the review and decision of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, it may file a request for review with the Medical Fee Dispute Resolution Council (Article 19(1)), and where the review and decision is notified, it may be dissatisfied with the review and decision by filing a lawsuit against an insurance company, etc. to the effect that it is incompatible with the review and decision (Article 21(2)). In light of the language and purport of the relevant provision, the review and decision shall be interpreted as non-legal binding (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da41574, 41581, Oct. 23, 2008), and the review of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service shall be deemed as part of the medical fee payment procedure rather than the requirement for the occurrence of the medical fee claims against the insurance company, etc. of medical institution, and in light of its nature,

④ Article 12-2(4) of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that the method and procedure for filing a claim for medical fees, review, objection, etc. shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport when an insurance company entrusts a specialized examination agency with the examination and adjustment of medical fees (Article 12-2(4)). Accordingly, Article 6-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that where an insurance company entrusts the examination to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, a medical institution shall file a claim for medical fees with the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. This is to ensure the effectiveness of the entrustment contract under the premise of the entrustment contract between the insurance company and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service and to minimize disputes that may arise between the medical institution and the insurance company. However, in order for the insurance company to receive medical fees from the insurance company, it shall not be deemed that the claim is an essential impact on the insurance company’s right to claim medical fees from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the medical institution has no requirements to pay medical fees.

⑤ It is not allowed to limit the people’s rights or impose obligations on them without any legal basis. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s provision on the form of document and method of preparing electronic documents claiming medical fees under Article 20(1) and (2) of the Medical Fee Review and Assessment Service Act provides that the guidelines for preparing detailed documents that are not prescribed in the guidelines under Article 20(1) and (2) of the Act can be prescribed by the Health and Assessment Service. However, the Health and Assessment Service Director does not limit the establishment of the detailed guidelines for preparing the written request and excludes the medical institution’s right to medical fee itself from the scope of delegation. Therefore, the public notice in this case is invalid without any legal basis.

(6) Even if the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service refuses an examination upon the request of a medical institution, if it is interpreted that a medical institution cannot seek a direct medical fee from an insurance company, etc., if it is interpreted that the medical institution cannot seek a direct medical fee from the insurance company, etc., the medical institution without any method to enforce the review of the Health Insurance and Assessment Service is a result of not being unfairly protected. Therefore, in such a case, the medical institution can claim a medical fee from the insurance company, etc.

7) The right to claim medical fees is recognized by the Automobile Loss Act as a right against the insurer of a medical institution that provided medical treatment to a traffic accident patient. However, according to the public notice of this case, according to the medical institution that provided medical treatment to an in-patient, etc., the medical institution that provided medical treatment is entitled to receive medical fees for non-in-patient's medical treatment from an insurance company, etc., and the medical institution that provided medical treatment is not entitled to deprive the insurer, etc. of the right to claim medical fees from the medical institution that provided medical treatment without any legal basis (the delivery of medical fees by the medical institution

(8) If a medical institution cannot directly claim the payment of medical fees to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service solely on the ground that it provided medical treatment by another medical institution after being entrusted with medical treatment, and the insurance company, etc. cannot claim the payment of medical fees even, if it refuses the claim of medical fees and the vicarious payment of medical fees in addition to the entrustment of medical treatment, if the medical institution entrusted with medical treatment refuses the claim of medical fees for the part of the medical treatment which provided medical treatment on the ground that there

C. Specific determination

1) Part for the claimant

A) Determination on the cause of the claim

(1) Part of the claim for review by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (attached Form 3)

In full view of the evidence mentioned above, including the statements in Gap evidence No. 32 (including additional numbers), the "Plaintiff" listed in the attached Table 3 table "A" had each plaintiffs claimed medical fees from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service after providing medical treatment, such as video diagnosis, to each traffic accident patient stated in the "name of the patient" in the attached Table No. 3 after receiving a request from other medical institutions. Accordingly, it is recognized that the Health Insurance and Assessment Service rendered a review and Assessment Service as stated in the "amount of review decision" in the same table (According to reference materials submitted by the National Federation of Bus Transport Services after the closing of argument in the trial of the case, according to the review submitted by the National Federation of Bus Transport Services after the closing of argument in the case of this case, even before the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service conducted an examination of medical fees of plaintiff 5 (Plaintiff 3) as KRW 123,700, the final amount of review decision was refused, and the above defendant did not raise an objection to the review and decision as stated in the above statement.

According to the above facts of recognition, each of the Defendants listed in the attached Table 3 bears the obligation to pay each of the above Plaintiffs the amount stated in the "examination decision amount" column of the same Table and the damages for delay thereof (the whole contents of reorganization are as shown in the attached Table 1).

(2) The portion of the claim filed against the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (attached Form 4)

The plaintiffs stated in the attached Table 4 "Plaintiff" filed a claim with the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service for the payment of medical fees to each traffic accident patient stated in the "name of patient" column of the same Table upon request of other medical institutions for treatment of hospitalized patients. However, the Health Insurance and Assessment Service refused to examine the medical fees by making a decision on cancellation of examination and impossibility of examination as to the above claim, and the above plaintiffs received notice of the intention to pay medical fees from each of the defendants mentioned in the attached Table 4 prior to conducting outpatients for the above traffic accident patients, or can be recognized by taking into account the evidence that there is no dispute between the parties or the aforementioned facts.

According to the above facts of recognition, unless there are special circumstances, each of the Defendants listed in the attached Table 4 bears the obligation to pay each of the amounts stated in the "request amount" column of the same Table and damages for delay thereof to the above Plaintiffs (the total contents of reorganization are as shown in the attached Table 1).

B) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

(1) The plaintiffs cannot directly claim against the defendants

The defendants asserted that in order for the plaintiffs to be paid medical fees, the payment to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service shall be claimed, and that the direct claim against the defendants shall not be accepted.

However, if a medical institution that provided medical treatment for traffic accident patients first claims medical fees to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, but did not proceed with payment procedures after the review by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, it is possible to directly seek medical fees from the insurance company. This part of the plaintiffs' claims against the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, although they claimed medical fees from the Health Insurance and Assessment Service, are not paid due to non-examination. The defendants' claims on different premise are rejected.

(2) The assertion that there exists an agreement that the medical fee is zero won

The Defendants asserted that the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service’s refusal of review upon receiving the claim for medical fee from the Plaintiffs is the same as the review of whether the medical fee is KRW 0 or no longer claimed. As the Plaintiffs did not raise any objection to the Medical Fee Dispute Resolution Council, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants should have agreed that the medical fee is KRW 0 or no longer claimed medical fee.

However, there is no ground to view that the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service has reached an agreement to waive the claim of medical fees on the grounds that the medical fees should be considered zero won or that there is no objection against the refusal of review. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion on the different premise is rejected.

(3) The assertion that the extinctive prescription has expired

The Defendants asserted that the claim of this case was based on the claim of medical expenses for traffic accident patients, and that the claim of this case expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, and that the claim of this case cannot be complied with.

Article 12 of the Automobile Loss Act provides that where an insurance company, etc. or a victim under the latter part of Article 10 (1) has become aware of the occurrence of a traffic accident patient due to a request or any other cause, etc., the insurance company, etc. shall without delay inform the medical institution that treats the traffic accident patient of the intention to pay medical fees and the payment limit thereof (Article 10 (1)). A medical institution that has been notified by the insurance company, etc. of the intention to pay medical fees and the payment limit may claim medical fees from the relevant insurance company, etc. (Article 12 (2). Where the medical institution can claim medical fees from the insurance company, etc., the insurance company, etc. shall not claim medical fees corresponding thereto from the traffic accident patient (including the guardian of the patient). However, where the insurance company, etc. has known that there is no intention to pay or has withdrawn the payment limit, the insurance company, etc. has requested the insurance company, etc. to directly pay the medical fees to the insurance company, etc. (Article 5).

According to the relevant provisions, the Plaintiffs’ right to claim medical fee against the Defendants is recognized by the Automobile Loss Act as a right recognized by the Defendants’ medical fee payment intent. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs’ right to claim medical fee against the victims of traffic accidents has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ right to claim medical fee against the victims of traffic accidents cannot be extinguished as a matter of course on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ right to claim medical fee has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period (the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim medical fee against the Defendants, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ right to claim medical fee against the victims of traffic accidents cannot be exercised pursuant to Article

The defendants' assertion on different premise is rejected.

(4) A claim that the amount of the claim is not reasonable

The defendants asserts that the medical fees claimed by the plaintiffs are excessive in compliance with the standards set by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

First of all, there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Defendants filed a request for review with the Medical Fee Dispute Resolution Council as to the review result, and thus, the agreement between the relevant Plaintiffs and the Defendants as to the same contents as the review result is concluded (Article 19(3) of the Automobile Loss Compensation Act). The pertinent Defendants cannot dispute this late, and therefore, they are obliged to pay medical fees according to the above review result as seen earlier.

The following argument about the part of the claim without review by the Health Insurance Review Board is examined. The defendants merely claim that the medical fees of the plaintiffs are excessive without a specific review, but do not present specific grounds as to which part of the plaintiffs' claims amount exceeds the standard of public notice by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim amount should be recognized as medical fees within the standard of public notice.

Ultimately, this part of the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

2) The dismissal part

A) The part of the claim for the automobile medical fees already paid (attached Form 5)

In full view of the evidence mentioned above, including the evidence Nos. 3 and 3 of A, the "Plaintiff" in the attached Table No. 5 is acknowledged that each of the plaintiffs stated in the attached Table No. 5 requested the treatment of inpatients by other medical institutions and requested the payment of medical fees to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service after giving medical treatment to each traffic accident patient mentioned in the attached Table No. 5.

However, according to each of the above evidence, the above plaintiffs were found to have received each amount stated in the "request amount" column of the same Table after the review and decision of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Thus, the defendants' defense pointing this out is correct.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' claims is not accepted (total contents of reorganization are as shown in the attached Table 1).

(B) Claim portion (attached Form 6) not claimed against the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service.

The plaintiffs mentioned in the separate sheet No. 6 "the plaintiff" have provided medical treatment, such as video diagnosis, to each traffic accident patient mentioned in the "name of patient" column of the same Table upon request of other medical institutions, and the fact that the above plaintiffs received notice of the intent to pay medical fees from each of the defendants mentioned in the same table prior to conducting outpatient medical treatment for the above traffic accident patients is not disputed between the parties or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the above plaintiffs claimed medical fees from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' claim constitutes a claim which does not meet the requirements for payment under the law and the defendants' claim pointing this out is correct.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' claims cannot be accepted without further review (the whole contents of reorganization are as shown in the attached Table 1).

3) Sub-determination

The Defendants indicated in the attached Table 1 “Defendant 1” are obligated to pay each of the amounts indicated in “B” column of the same Table to the Plaintiffs, and each of them, as requested by the Plaintiffs, the following day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the Plaintiffs. The “The day on which the copy of the No. report is served” column of the attached Table 1, which is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, from each of the relevant days to September 27, 2019, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claim of this case against the defendants shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, as reasonable, and the remaining claims shall not be justifiable and dismissed.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which partially accepted the plaintiffs' appeal and ruled that the part of the judgment against the plaintiffs corresponding to the above recognized amount is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the defendants to pay the above recognized amount (the part of winning part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant 12 was invalidated by the reduction of claim by plaintiff 12).

Judges Kim Yong-An (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The proviso provided that “However, this shall not apply where a request for review is filed pursuant to Article 19(1).” However, the proviso was amended by Act No. 13377 on June 22, 2015.

2) As amended by Presidential Decree No. 25419 on February 5, 2014, the part of “Health Insurance Review Board” (hereinafter “Health Insurance Review Board”) is the same as at the time newly incorporated by Presidential Decree No. 24065 on August 22, 2012, in addition to the addition.