1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is an insurance company that runs non-life insurance business.

Defendant A is a doctor who is the head of the “E Hospital” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”) located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

Defendant B is not a vice-president of the administration, but a medical person under the Medical Service Act, and Defendant C is a director of the instant hospital as the spouse of Defendant B.

Upon the final judgment of the relevant criminal case, Defendant B and A were indicted under the charge that “Defendant B, a non-medical person, established the instant hospital in substance and led its operation, and violated the Medical Service Act by establishing the instant hospital, which is a medical institution, around July 16, 2007, and ② as if he/she was a medical institution established by the medical personnel, he/she claimed medical care benefits from September 7, 2007 to November 23, 2015, and acquired KRW 10,530,640 on one occasion as the name of the medical care benefit cost from September 7, 2007 to November 23, 2015.”

On September 28, 2017, the above court found Defendant B and A not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of the above facts charged in violation of the Medical Service Act and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

Therefore, the prosecutor appealed in Seoul High Court 2017No3171, but the appeal was dismissed on May 31, 2018, and the judgment of the first instance court was finalized on June 8, 2018.

【In the absence of dispute, there is no ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 5, which is obvious to this court, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings in collusion, the defendants Eul, a non-medical person, led to the establishment and operation of the hospital of this case.

As such, since each medical contract concluded at a medical institution established in violation of the Medical Service Act is null and void, the insurance money paid directly by the Plaintiff to the instant hospital constitutes the Plaintiff’s damage caused by non-legal grounds or joint tort committed by the Defendants.

Therefore, it is true.