beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant Meritorious Loss Insurance Co., Ltd.: KRW 5,227,105 and its related thereto from October 21, 201 to October 201.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a school juristic person operating the Han River University Dental Hospital, the Hannam Mental Hospital, the Han River heart Hospital, and the Chuncheon astronomical Hospital. If the victims of traffic accidents caused by vehicles that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract, etc. with an insurance company request a CT and MRI test (hereinafter referred to as the “cinematographic photographing test”), the Plaintiff notified the Defendants, etc., and confirmed the guarantor’s intent to guarantee the payment, and received insurance money equivalent to the cost of video photographing from the insurance company, etc. in accordance with the standards for calculating medical fees stipulated in the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, etc.
Accordingly, medical fees covered by automobile insurance had been based on the health insurance act publicly notified by the Minister of Health and Welfare under Article 42(1) of the former National Health Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same) and Article 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Health Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24077, Aug. 31, 2012; hereinafter the same) and its relative value points.
B. On April 6, 2011, the Minister of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs publicly notified that “the point of relative value of CT is 15%, 30% of the relative value of MRI, and 16% of the relative value of PET” (hereinafter “instant reduction public notice”; the public notice prior to the said disposition was enforced on May 1, 201, and the above public notice was enforced from May 1, 201.
C. From May 2, 2011 to October 19, 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff was bound by the Defendants as to the patients indicated in the attached list subject to the video photographing examination, and received insurance money equivalent to the cost of video photographing in the city.
However, the Seoul Administrative Court's relative point point point point of 201Guhap13125 against the city of this case is "the revocation of the disposition is below".