[1] In a case where the Federation, etc. of Medical Insurance replys to the notification that a medical institution refuses to designate a medical care institution, whether the response constitutes a disposition subject to appeal (negative)

[2] Whether the insurer or the insurer's organization requires a medical institution's application or submission of documents under Article 31 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Insurance Act and Article 22 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Insurance Act for Public Officials and Private School Teachers and Staff (negative)

[3] Whether the reason that the current medical insurance fees are lower than the medical care fees of a medical institution or that the Federation of Medical Insurance Associations, etc. unfairly reduces the medical care fees of a medical institution and does not correct these fees so, and thus the dispute continues to exist (negative)

[1] Where a medical institution designated as a medical care institution by the Medical Insurance Federation, etc. provides that the current medical care institution shall not continue to engage in medical activities because it is lower medical care personnel than the current medical care personnel, and that the Medical Insurance Federation, etc. unfairly reduces medical care expenses and does not correct it yet, and that such reason constitutes justifiable grounds for refusing the designation of medical care institutions, and the Medical Insurance Federation, etc. issued a reply that the above medical institution’s refusal to designate the medical care institution does not constitute justifiable grounds for refusing the designation of the medical care institution, the reply by the Medical Insurance Federation, etc. is merely a verification of the legality of the designation of the medical care institution, and the reply by the Medical Insurance Federation, etc. cannot be deemed as an act directly related to the rights and obligations of the citizens, such as ordering the above medical institution to bear a burden on rights or obligations or giving other legal effects. Moreover, the medical institution designated as a medical care institution cannot be deemed as an object of appeal litigation under Article 32(5) of the former Medical Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4972 of Aug. 4, 1997) and Article 38 of the Addenda of the Medical Insurance Act. 1997.

[2] Article 32 (5) of the former Medical Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4972 of Aug. 4, 1995) and Article 33 (3) of the former Medical Insurance Act for Public Officials and Private School Teachers and Staff ( repealed by Act No. 2 of the Addenda to the National Medical Insurance Act (Act No. 5488 of Dec. 31, 1997) do not mean that the insurer or the insurer’s organization designates the medical insurance medical care institution upon the application of the medical institution or the designation of the medical care institution, the purport of Article 31 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 128 of Aug. 19, 199) and Article 22 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Insurance Act for Public Officials and Private School Teachers and Staff (amended by Act No. 4972 of Nov. 20, 198) is

[3] The reason why the current medical insurance fees are lower than the medical care fees of medical institutions, or that the Medical Insurance Federation, etc. unfairly reduces the medical care fees of medical institutions in violation of the law and the dispute still remains due to the absence of correction thereof, shall not be deemed as a justifiable reason for refusing the designation of medical care institutions, in light of the fact that Articles 60 through 70 of the former Medical Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4972 of Aug. 4, 1995) and Articles 61 and 62 of the former Public Officials and Private School Teachers and Staff Medical Insurance Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Medical Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 5488 of Dec. 31, 1997), and Articles 61

[1] Article 32(5) of the former Medical Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4972 of Aug. 4, 1995); Article 33(3) of the former Public Officials and Private School Teachers and Staff Medical Insurance Act ( repealed by Act No. 2 of the Addenda of the National Medical Insurance Act (Act No. 5488 of Dec. 31, 1997); Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 32(5) of the former Medical Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4972 of Aug. 4, 1995); Article 31(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4978 of Aug. 19, 199; Article 31(2) of the former Public Officials and Private School Teachers and Staff Act (amended by Act No. 54972 of Dec. 31, 199); Article 38(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Medical Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 97 subparag. 38(2)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5348 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 291) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu5612 delivered on February 24, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 914) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14036 delivered on July 10, 199 (Gong198Ha, 2125), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13641 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong199Ha, 210)

Plaintiff

Medical Insurance Federation and one other (Law Firm Ba, Attorneys Noh Jeong-eng et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu21753 delivered on June 24, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Plaintiff’s establishment of an insurance benefit under Article 32 of the former Medical Insurance Act and Article 33 of the former Medical Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4972 of Aug. 4, 1995) cannot be viewed as unlawful because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to seek the designation of a medical care institution for the following reasons: (a) the designation of the medical care institution was cancelled from November 21, 1992 to September 6, 194; and (b) the Plaintiff cannot be viewed as unfairly refusing to file an appeal suit against the Plaintiff’s designation of the medical care institution under Article 32 of the former Medical Insurance Act and Article 33 of the former Medical Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 5488 of Dec. 31, 1997); and (c) the Plaintiff cannot be viewed as unfairly refusing to file an appeal suit against the Plaintiff’s designation of the medical care institution as a public official under Article 93 of the same Act.

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party, and pursuant to Article 6 of the Addenda to the National Medical Service Act, the non-party 1 is the chief director of the defendant's public official and the Medical Insurance Corporation for Private School Teachers and Staff, who is the representative of the National Medical Service Corporation,

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)