logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.08.11 2014구합22067
장기요양급여비용환수결정 취소 청구의 소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged, provides elderly citizens with benefits, such as visiting medical care, while operating the “E Center,” which is a long-term care institution (hereinafter “instant center”).

1. Violation of the general principles of visiting and visiting home care facilities: 80,780,590 won (1) A caregiver who resides in a G church (H location) between August 2, 2010 and April 28, 2014 by a recipient I, J, K, L, M, and other five persons, such as G church (H location): 67,881,680 won.

2. A claim for the violation of criteria for additional placement of human resources: 2,622,370 won on March 3, 2014 and April 2014;

B. As a result, the Defendant conducted on-site investigations (the period subject to investigation: from May 1, 201 to April 30, 2014; total of 36 months) of the instant center from June 16, 2014 to June 19, 2014 in collaboration with F Si, and discovered that the Plaintiff unduly claimed expenses for long-term care benefits as follows:

C. Accordingly, on August 21, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision to recover KRW 83,402,960 for long-term care benefit costs pursuant to Article 43 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged.

(C) The first disposition of this case regarding care benefit costs of KRW 67,81,680, and the first disposition of this case with respect to care benefit costs of KRW 12,898,910 with respect to care benefit costs of KRW 12,89,00 with respect to care benefit costs of KRW 12,898,910 with respect to care benefit costs of KRW 30,000 with respect to care benefits of KRW 12,89,910 with respect to care benefit costs of this case; and the first and second disposition of this case are referred to as the "each disposition of this case" with respect to the first disposition of

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of this case

arrow