Whether Article 53 (1) 6 of the former Medical Service Act includes cases where a physician is punished as a joint penal provision under Article 70 of the same Act as a user in the case of violating this Act or an order issued under this Act (negative)

Article 53 (1) 6 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 6686 of Mar. 30, 2002) provides that "when an agent, employee or other worker violates this Act or any order issued under this Act," the case where the employer is punished as joint penal provisions under Article 70 of the same Act by committing an act under Article 25 (3) of the same Act.

Article 53 (1) 6 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 6686 of March 30, 2002)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Yong-hoon, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Health and Welfare

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu13825 delivered on December 4, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

In Chapter 5 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 6686 of March 30, 202, hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Chapter 7 provides for the supervision of the Minister of Health and Welfare, including the cancellation of permission to establish a medical institution, suspension of medical services and penalty surcharges, suspension of license to a medical person, etc. In addition, Chapter 5 provides for prohibition of law, prohibition of duty provisions, criminal punishment, and joint penal provisions under Articles 66 through 69, and it is possible to suspend medical services and impose penalty surcharges on a medical institution for the latter. It is more difficult to interpret that the act of violation of duty of an agent or an employee in a medical institution is more than that of an agent's violation of the former Medical Service Act, and that the latter's act of violation of duty of care and supervision is more than that of an agent's violation of the Act, and that the latter's act of violation of the Act is more than that of an agent's violation of the Act's provision of the Act's provision of the Act's provision.

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, based on its adopted evidence, found the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that even if the non-party, who is an employee of the plaintiff, introduced and mediated the patient for profit, and thereby, the plaintiff was convicted pursuant to the joint penal provisions under Article 70 of the Act, it cannot be deemed as a ground for cancelling the qualification of doctor's license under Article 53 (1) 6 of the Act.

Inasmuch as the court below's fact-finding is just in comparison with the evidence on the record, the judgment of the court below is just in its factual basis as it is in accordance with the above legal principles, and it cannot be viewed as a letter of intent under Article 25 (3) of the Act on the ground that the plaintiff knew of the acts of the non-party, and there is no illegality in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the disposition of the suspension

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to apply this case to different cases.

The argument in the grounds of appeal is not accepted.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)