beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff is a doctor who establishes and operates a “Chovaan Council member” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Council member”) in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
Around March 2016, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation with respect to the instant member. On June 19, 2019, based on Article 66(1)7 of the Medical Service Act, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending qualification for intention qualification (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 66(1)7 of the same Act, on the ground that “The Plaintiff was paid KRW 15,847,360 as costs of health care benefit even if the Plaintiff was paid for the expenses from the recipient of the instant member to April 2015, by claiming for KRW 15,847,360 as costs of health care benefit (hereinafter “instant disposition” or “the instant claim”).
The detailed calculation details of the period for which the above license qualification is suspended for 90,460 won, 90 won, 90, 990 won, 170,847, 360 won, 99.32% of the total amount of medical care costs (from October 2014 to January 16, 2016) for the period for investigation, are as follows.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the plaintiff's ground of disposition as to whether the disposition of the plaintiff's whole purport of the argument is legitimate, the plaintiff's non-existence of the ground of disposition as to the plaintiff's grounds of disposition as to whether the disposition of the plaintiff's whole argument is legitimate shall be excluded from the scope of false claim with respect to the plaintiffs stated in the list of double claimant's names with respect to D, E, F, G, H, He, K, L, M, N, P, Q, Q, M, T, T, U, V, W, X, Z, Z, and A (hereinafter referred to as "24 persons such as D, etc."). As such, the part related to D, etc. should be excluded from the scope of false claim.
The plaintiff was not professionally engaged in the procedure, such as removal of points as an internal medicine specialist, and the plaintiff is a man or a man-child.