1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,692,239,520 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 30, 2012 to April 26, 2018.

Facts of recognition

A. Defendant and B are not doctors, and a person who is not a doctor cannot establish a hospital pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act.

B. The Defendant, in collusion with B, obtained a medical license from C, set up an “Epsychological hospital” in G with the wife population D, and operated the said hospital from August 18, 2010.

C. From August 18, 2010 to June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,694,008,880 as medical care benefit costs to “Epsychological hospital.”

On February 21, 2013, the Defendant and B were convicted of a fine for each of the following reasons: (a) even though they were not medical personnel at the Suwon District Court on February 21, 2013, the Defendant and B were convicted of having established a medical institution; and (b) the said judgment was dismissed both the Defendant and B’s appeal

[Ground] Under Articles 42(1) and 47 of the National Health Insurance Act, a medical institution established under the Medical Service Act may claim to the Plaintiff for the payment of expenses incurred in relation to the medical care benefits provided by the pertinent medical institution, and the Plaintiff shall pay the medical care benefit costs to the medical care institution according to the review by the Review and Assessment Service.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant established and operated a “Epsyun” under the name of a doctor C even though the Defendant was not a doctor in collusion with B. As seen above, the Defendant had the Plaintiff claim for medical care benefit costs provided by the said hospital from “Epsyun” established in violation of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to incur KRW 1,694,08,880 from August 18, 2010 to June 1, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant, without any legal ground, sustained damages equivalent to the above medical care benefit cost and benefits therefrom from the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is the plaintiff's principal-paid refund out of the amount equivalent to the above medical care benefit cost.