logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.12.21 2018누53018
요양급여비용환수처분취소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following matters:

3. The 9th parallel shall be as follows:

A. The Plaintiff A did not commit the same offense as the reasons for the instant disposition. In particular, the instant medical care center is a long-term care institution for the aged under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged, not a long-term care institution for the aged under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged, and the F was admitted to the instant medical care center for the aged under the Welfare of the Aged Act, not a long-term care institution for the aged under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged, even if

The 3rd 3rd 10th 10th 3th 10th 1st 3th 2th 3th 21th 3th 21th 3th 3th 2th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 4th 5th 5th 5th 6th 6th 8th 15th 4th 15th 15th 2 as follows. According to each entry of the evidence No. 9-1 and 2 of this case, the plaintiffs were designated as the long-term care institution under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged and received the report completion certificate as the sanatorium for the elderly under the Welfare of the Aged Act.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Plaintiff A committed an act of violation, such as the entry of the instant disposition grounds, in light of the overall purport of the arguments, as stated in the evidence Nos. 5, 8, and 6-1, 2, and 7-1 of the evidence Nos. 6-1, and the overall purport of the pleadings. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. A) The Plaintiff violated the fixed number of grounds for disposition, the standards for assignment of human resources, and the criteria for additional assignment of human resources (the crime of violation of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for

arrow