1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked:

Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

2. The reasoning for the court’s decision on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Article 57(1) of the National Health Insurance Act violates the principle of clarity, such as where it is impossible to know who the meaning of a fraudulent or other improper means, and where a medical person opens a medical institution by borrowing some funds from a non-medical person despite the difference of illegality, if a non-medical person opens a medical institution by borrowing some funds from a non-medical person, he/she would be unconstitutional by violating the principle of equality, etc., at the same time, applying for an adjudication on the constitutionality of the above provision, and then withdraw it. The above argument is not judged separately

1) A lawful medical institution-related member of the instant case is established by the Plaintiff, who is a medical personnel, and was jointly established with non-medical personnel D, or was invested in funds opened from D, and was repaid after borrowing funds from D. As long as the Plaintiff, who is a medical personnel, directly provided medical services with permission for the establishment of a medical institution in accordance with the Medical Service Act, the instant member is a medical institution that can claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act, and the claim for medical care benefit costs cannot be seen as a fraudulent or other improper method. 2) A somewhat illegal act was committed in the process of establishing

Even if it is limited to recovery of the costs of medical care for illegal medical treatment performed by D, and it is also limited to the costs of medical care provided by the plaintiff as a medical person.