The judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The Defendant’s unfair profit amounting to KRW 5,192,34,230,00,000 against the Plaintiff on September 6, 2017.

1. Case summary and key issue

A. The summary of the case (1) on November 12, 2008, the Plaintiff lent his/her pharmaceutical license to F and G (hereinafter “F, etc.”) who are the head of the “E Hospital” hospital located in Gangnam-si D, 2008.

From November 12, 2008 to October 7, 2010, F et al. established and operated “C pharmacy” (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”) in Gangseo-si B in the name of the Plaintiff.

(2) The instant pharmacy received insurance benefit costs of KRW 3,708,237,30 from the Defendant with respect to medicine that was paid to the insured or dependent by the National Health Insurance or his/her dependents during the foregoing period (hereinafter collectively “instant benefit costs”). (3) On September 6, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant benefit costs of KRW 1,484,106,930 from the insured or his/her dependent (hereinafter collectively “instant benefit costs”). On the ground that “The instant pharmacy was established in violation of Article 20(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and thus, the instant benefit costs of this case constitute a case where the Plaintiff was paid by fraudulent or other illegal means,” the instant disposition was taken to collect the total amount of KRW 5,192,34,230 based on Article 52(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including various numbers if there are several numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The key issue of the instant case pertains to (1) whether a pharmacy established and operated by a person who is not authorized to establish a pharmacy with a pharmacist’s license constitutes subject to the disposition of collecting unjust benefits under Article 52(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act; and (2) whether the pertinent pharmacy’s disposition of collecting the full amount of the expenses for benefits received from the Defendant, etc. constitutes abuse of discretionary authority.

2. Whether grounds for disposition are recognized;

A. The relevant legal principles are sought.