1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Intervenor joining the Defendant is modified as follows.

In the lawsuit of this case.

1. The Plaintiff sought revocation of each refund disposition stated in the purport of the claim, and the first instance court rendered a judgment citing only the portion of selective medical fees (which is the portion of DNA unfair collection that is below) among them.

Accordingly, the plaintiff, the defendant and the intervenor appealed against each part of the judgment against them, but before the remand, the plaintiff withdrawn the appeal as to the remaining part except the part regarding the intervenor.

Therefore, the scope of the trial before remanding the case is limited to the part concerning the intervenor and each selective medical expenses among the part concerning C, D, E, and F of the refund disposition stated in the purport of the claim.

The trial prior to the remand dismissed part of the instant lawsuit against the Intervenor, and accepted only each selective medical expenses among the parts concerning the Intervenor, C, D, E, and F.

Accordingly, only the plaintiff appealed against the part against the intervenor.

The judgment of remand, before remanding, reversed and remanded the part of the judgment of the party prior to the remand relating to “the portion not subject to separate calculation (the following portion of unfair collection)” and “the portion concerning medication other than the permitted matters (the following portion of unfair collection)” with respect to the Intervenor, and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal.

Therefore, the following portion of the unfair collection of Category A (8,515,060) is limited to the part of the Plaintiff’s failure, the part of the D-type unfair collection (2,369,197 won) which was finalized in favor of the Plaintiff, and the part of the party’s trial after remanding is limited to the part of the Intervenor’s failure to calculate the separate imposition price, and the part of the other than the permitted matters.

2. Details of the disposition;

A. Under the National Health Insurance Act, the Plaintiff is a school juristic person which establishes and operates a G hospital (hereinafter “Plaintiff hospital”) which is a medical care institution under the National Health Insurance Act, and the Intervenor is a subscriber to the National Health Insurance, and C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a beneficiary of the Medical Care Assistance Act.

B. All of the winners of the instant case are acute bruptal leukosiss.