logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.04.19 2017구합70090
의사면허자격정지처분취소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an intention to establish and operate a Council Member C (hereinafter “instant Council Member”) in Pakistan-si.

B. On May 18, 2017, the Defendant, at the instant Council member on February 16, 2016, induced the Plaintiff to make a profit by discounting the individual charges under the National Health Insurance Act or the Medical Care Assistance Act to the winners listed in the table (hereinafter “the instant winners”) on the part of the Plaintiff on February 16, 2016, and did not enter the patient’s main symptoms and treatment details in detail, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to enter the amount of trithothn injection in the form of “CC” (hereinafter “CCj 1”) in the form of medical records after the medical examination and treatment was conducted.

The former Medical Service Act (Amended by Act No. 14220, May 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that it is the Act.

) Based on Article 66(1)10, Article 22(1), and Article 27(3), the suspension of qualification for a doctor’s license was imposed on the seven-month basis (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, entry of Gap’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The relevant statutes (attached Form 2) are as stated in the relevant statutes.

B. Whether Article 27(3) of the former Medical Service Act is violated 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the Plaintiff violated Article 27(3) of the same Act, among the medical professionals of this case, received all of the personal contributions from the patients eligible for medical benefits, and there is no exemption or discount from the personal contributions

Even if the Plaintiff exempted or discounted the medical expenses to the winners of the instant case, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff fundamentally harmed the order of the medical market. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have induced the patient to the instant council member.

B. "Personal charges under the National Health Insurance Act or the Medical Care Assistance Act" prohibiting exemption or discount under Article 27 (3) of the former Medical Service Act means expenses borne by a person who received medical care benefits or medical care benefits.

The plaintiff.

arrow