beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspending qualification for doctor’s license issued to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2017 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Details and details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a doctor who establishes and operates Aburology B in Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter “instant member”).
B. On October 31, 2016, the prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition suspending prosecution on the part of the Plaintiff on the charge of violating the Medical Service Act, stating that “the Plaintiff received an economic benefit equivalent to the above amount provided for the purpose of promoting the sale of medicines manufactured and sold by pro rata drugs from pro rata drugs, by having the Plaintiff pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 2,164,000 to October 13, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant period”).
C. On March 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition suspending the qualification for two months to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the instant case was the same (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 66(1)9 and 23-2(1) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 13658, Dec. 29, 2015).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
B. The key point of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the grounds for disposition is the relationship between the Plaintiff and C, who is engaged in the same healthcare field.
The plaintiff was thought that C would make a settlement as a substitute for the meal expenses, and did not know at all that C would provide the plaintiff with economic benefits for the purpose of promoting the sale of drugs as a pharmaceutical company's sales partner.
In addition, during the instant period, the Plaintiff’s prescription on the drugs was maintained without any particular difference.
Considering this, C’s payment of the Plaintiff’s meal expenses cannot be deemed as the purpose of promoting the sale of medicines, and it cannot be said that there was an awareness about the Plaintiff’s payment.
The grounds for the instant disposition are not recognized, so this case.