Method of determining whether a place in which a pharmacy is to be established falls under “the inside of facilities or premises of medical institutions” prohibited by Article 20(5)2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

Pharmaceutical Affairs Act Article 20 (5) 2

Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10995 Delivered on December 12, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 169) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1204 Delivered on July 22, 2004

Plaintiff

Head of Daegu Metropolitan City, Seo-gu Public Health Center;

Daegu High Court Decision 2014Nu4611 decided October 10, 2014

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In determining whether a place where a pharmacy is to be established constitutes “the inside of facilities or premises of a medical institution” prohibited under Article 20(5)2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, the legislative intent of the above provision should be taken into account, in addition to the literal meaning of the text and language, in order to impose an obligation to prepare nuclear drugs for outpatients of a medical institution in accordance with the principle of pharmaceutical distribution business, where a pharmacy is placed in an independent place from a medical institution spatial and functionally (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1204, Jul. 22, 2004, etc.).

The lower court determined that, on the ground that the above pharmacy was used on the 1st, the 7th ground floor in the building of this case from the 2nd to the 2nd floor, and that there was only one general department, open set, the pharmacy, and the coffee store on the 1st floor, and that the only method to enter the pharmacy of this case was the entrance and exit on the side of the south side and India, there is no need to use the outside door, stairs, and elevators of the Dad Hospital installed on the front side of the Dad Hospital. In addition, to enter the pharmacy of this case from the above Dod Hospital, the above pharmacy was not allowed to enter the hospital of this case through the Dod Hospital, and it was not possible for the above 3rd to use the Dod Hospital separately from the Dod Hospital of this case by using the entrance and exit of the above pharmacy of this case or the Dod Hospital of this case, and even if the Dod Hospital of this case was installed on the outside of the Dod Hospital of this case, it did not have any possibility for the mental health department of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 20(5)2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which led to failure

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)