Nature of issuing a renewed license for a medical care provider;

Under Article 7, Article 59 (amended by Act No. 2862 of Dec. 31, 1675), Article 59 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act, and Article 59 and Article 58 of the Enforcement Rule of the Health and Social Affairs Ministry Notice No. 58 of Nov. 9, 1973, the renewal of the qualification certificate of medical care providers by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City or Do governor shall not be granted or verified the qualification of similar medical care providers, but it shall be an administrative act belonging to the so

Article 60 of the Medical Service Act, Articles 2 and 7 of the Addenda of the Medical Service Act, Article 59 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim J-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu208 delivered on November 3, 1976

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 60 of the Medical Service Act, the term “catters and bedies who obtained qualifications under the previous provisions prior to the enforcement of this Act (hereinafter referred to as “medical care provider”) shall be capable of engaging in the practice at the place of practice, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 25, and Article 7 of the Addenda shall be renewed within 6 months from the enforcement date of this Act, as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, by a medical person at the place as provided in Article 58 and by a medical care provider as provided in Article 59 (referring to the period before the amendment by Act No. 2862, Dec. 31, 1975).

After the expiration of this period, the previous license or qualification certificate shall not be used, and Article 59 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act shall apply to the person who intends to renew the license or qualification certificate of various medical personnel under the proviso of Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act, along with the prescribed documents attached to the application form, and the license concerned shall be submitted to the certificate issued (the Minister

In this case, an application to be submitted to the Minister of Health and Welfare shall be subject to the competent Do governor, and Article 2 and Article 7 of the Addenda of the amended Medical Service Act and Article 59 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that the application shall be submitted to the Minister of Health and Welfare, and Article 58 of the Ministry of Health and Welfare shall be subject to the renewal of the

1. Subject to renewal and delivery agency (b) the number of assistants (1) the qualification certificate of each Mayor/Do Governor has jurisdiction over the Mayor/Do Governor, she shall be deemed to be a person in writing, she shall be deemed to be a person in writing);

2. The period of receipt of the application and the renewed delivery was Nov. 9, 1973; the paper was announced Feb. 15, 1974.

According to these regulations and public notice, the so-called "pseudo Medical Person" qualified under the previous provisions prior to the enforcement of the Medical Service Act can engage in the practice of practice, and the issuance of qualification certificates by the Mayor or the Do governor shall be renewed within the prescribed period, and the renewal of qualification certificates by the Mayor or the Do governor shall not be granted or confirmed as a similar medical person, but shall be an administrative act belonging to the so-called so-called "notarial act" where the existence

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant market issued a aggression certificate to the plaintiff on May 30, 1974 pursuant to the above provisions but revoked the above qualification certificate on November 13, 1975 does not revoke the qualification as a similar medical practitioner, but again revoked the plaintiff's revocation of the qualification certificate. Thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of qualification in this case was erroneous in the misunderstanding of the plaintiff's claim. However, according to the records, it is clear that the plaintiff filed a suit against the above cancellation disposition after the expiration of the period under Article 3 of the plaintiff's claim. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim cannot be dismissed because it is improper to dismiss the plaintiff's main claim because it is improper to the conclusion that the plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit for cancellation of qualification in this case, and therefore, the 1 and 2 points of the lawsuit are not adopted.

2. As seen above, matters concerning the renewal of the qualification certificate are within the authority of the defendant market and such issuance belongs to an administrative act as a notarized act. According to the records, the defendant market issued a qualification certificate once issued and the documents submitted by the plaintiff are insufficient and there is no apparent and significant defect in the cancellation of the above qualification certificate. Accordingly, the decision of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's preliminary confirmation of invalidity of the plaintiff's conjunctive claimant is acceptable, and the third point of the dissenting opinion is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)