logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.06.15 2016구합9435
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a non-medical person registered as the chief director in the register of B unions (hereinafter “instant unions”) from March 18, 2013 to June 4, 2013.

B. Around May 30, 2016, the Defendant: (a) from the chief of the Seoul Special Metropolitan Police Station, the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Station: (b) was suspected of having committed a violation of the Medical Service Act, stating that “C was elected as the president of the instant association on June 15, 2010, and established and operated a medical institution under the name of the instant association on October 1, 2010; (c) the Plaintiff paid KRW 200 million to C, the president of the instant association, from February 1, 2016 to March 18, 2016; and (d) was selected as the president of the instant association on March 18, 2016, and operated D with C in collaboration with C. The Plaintiff and C received notification of the Plaintiff’s medical care benefit cost from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s medical institution to Defendant 296 and the Plaintiff’s medical institution’s medical care benefit cost to be paid by 30 billion won.”

C. On June 13, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it would recover KRW 5,315,120 of the insurance benefit costs paid before May 21, 2013 (Defendant shares 23,596,750 and co-payment KRW 7,79,250) paid after May 22, 2013, while notifying the Plaintiff that it would recover KRW 31,396,00 of the insurance benefit costs paid after May 22, 2013.

On July 4, 2016, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of restitution of KRW 31,396,00 based on Article 57 of the National Health Insurance Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion of this case

arrow