logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.07.25 2017구합60162
환수결정처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who establishes and operates the building B and the “C Elderly Protection Center for the Aged” as prescribed in Article 304, and is designated as a long-term care institution from the so-called care institution.

B. As a result of an investigation conducted on the Plaintiff on October 31, 2016 pursuant to Article 61(2) of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged of the Republic of Korea from March 2016 to August 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the fact that additional placement (social workers) of the visiting medical care benefits additional to KRW 7,718,70, KRW 306,00, KRW 121,730, KRW 44,090, KRW 44,090, and KRW 1,263,320, KRW 9,453,840, total amount of the visiting medical care benefits additional placement (additional duty) of September 31, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the restitution of the amount equivalent to the aforementioned long-term care benefits amount to KRW 16,15,20,000, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the restitution of the aforementioned amount to the Plaintiff on November 26, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

Of the instant disposition, the part on recovery of additional placement (social workers) of visiting care personnel on the ground of the failure to assign a manager for management during the period from March 2016 to September 2016 is KRW 8,982,020 (i.e., KRW 1,263,320 (i.e., KRW 7,718,700).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion refers to the answer that it is possible to hold a concurrent office by asking a public official in charge at the permissible time on whether the Plaintiff can hold a concurrent office with the nurse and the head of the visiting medical care institution, and the visit medical care from March 2016 to September 2016.

arrow