1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a person who, from October 2010, worked as a c dental clinic located in Ulsan-gu B (hereinafter “instant clinic”).

On March 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of seven days of qualification suspension (one day from May 23, 2015 to May 29, 2015) pursuant to Article 66(1)6 of the Medical Service Act on the ground that “The Defendant had a dental technician prepare a medical examination and treatment record and let him/her go beyond the scope of his/her duties.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Ground for recognition] A] without dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence No. 3, and the purport of the entire oral argument as to whether the disposition in this case is legitimate, the plaintiff, who has no ground for disposition, allowed a dental sanitarian to substitute for the medical records as stated in his/her refusal, and confirmed and signed the contents thereof.

This is done within the discretionary range with regard to the method of preparing medical records with a doctor, and it is merely a mechanical use of a dental sanitarian, and therefore, the plaintiff should be deemed to have prepared a medical examination and treatment directly.

Simple completion of medical examination and treatment is not a medical practice, and it is within the scope of work that medical technicians can perform under the direction of the doctor even if it is a medical practice.

The Medical Service Act, which does not state the records of medical examination and treatment, does not take the grounds for the suspension of qualification. Considering that equity with the above case, the contents recorded in the medical examination and treatment records are accurately consistent with the actual medical practice performed by the Plaintiff, and that the license of the doctor may be revoked when the suspension of qualification is imposed three times or more, the instant disposition is an abuse of discretion.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Facts of recognition

On January 10, 2012, the Plaintiff provided a dental sanitarian E with a typhical treatment, which places a typhical angle on D, who was admitted to the instant clinic, and then provides a dental sanitarian E.