2020Nu55710 Revocation of disposition of business suspension, etc.

Medical Corporations A

Attorney Kim Dong-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Minister of Health and Welfare

Law Firm Rate, Attorney Park Sung-sung

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Attorney Kim Yoon-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2018Guhap84737 decided August 20, 2020

November 12, 2020

December 10, 2020

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on March 6, 2018 and the disposition of business suspension against an institution providing medical benefits on March 14, 2018 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

【Supplementary Part】

The 10th 16th 16th 16th "(207du18215, Dec. 11, 2008, etc.)", "whether an administrative agency should take a certain period of suspension in rendering a disposition of suspension of business belongs to the discretionary authority of the administrative agency. However, if it constitutes an abuse of discretionary authority beyond the limits of discretionary authority in violation of the public interest principle, the principle of equality, or the principle of proportionality, etc., it is subject to judicial review as an illegal disposition. However, if the court determines that the disposition of suspension of business is abuse of discretionary authority, it can only order cancellation of the disposition as an illegal disposition, and if it is within the limits of discretionary authority to determine that a certain degree of suspension of business is a reasonable period of suspension of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu2, Sept. 28, 1982). This added "it can be seen as the same in the case of the disposition of suspension of business."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges or higher-ranking judges

Completion of Judge

Judges Magras