A. Whether the domestic medical care provider's qualifications, such as bedins, acquired in a foreign country, are recognized as immediately equivalent in the same manner;

(b) Scope of facts which the court may ex officio examine pursuant to Article 9 of the Administrative Litigation Act; and

(a) Even if a license or qualification of a medical care provider was obtained from a foreign country after the enforcement of the Medical Service Act, such license cannot be immediately recognized unless it goes through a prescribed test again in the Republic of Korea.

B. Article 9(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the court may ex officio examine the facts, if necessary, and determine the facts that the parties did not assert. Thus, the court may ex officio investigate and determine the facts that the parties did not assert without any limitation, but only based on the records.

Article 60 of the Medical Service Act, Article 9 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu233 delivered on May 27, 1975, 80Nu493 Delivered on March 24, 1981

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu413 delivered on January 21, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

First, we examine the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 1 and 3 and the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 2.

According to Article 60 (2) of the Medical Service Act, the provisions pertaining to medical care and medical institutions shall apply mutatis mutandis to medical care providers (this Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to medical care providers. In this case, "medical care providers" shall be "medical care providers", "licenses" shall be "qualifications", "medical institutions" shall be "licenses" and "medical institutions" shall be "place of practice". Meanwhile, considering the provisions of Articles 2, 5 through 7, 9 of the Medical Service Act and Article 10 and Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 2 of the same Act of the same Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it shall not be justified in the judgment below to recognize that medical care providers, dentists, persons who have graduated from the prescribed schools recognized by the Minister of Health and Welfare, persons who have obtained a license, or persons who have obtained a license as prescribed by the Minister of Health and Welfare from the Republic of Korea, or persons who have obtained a license for permanent residence from the Republic of Korea, or persons who have obtained a license from the Republic of Korea, and the prescribed schools in Korea.

Next, we examine Plaintiff 2’s ground of appeal No. 2.

Article 9 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "the court may, if necessary, conduct an ex officio examination of evidence and determine facts that the parties did not assert, without any restriction, the court shall not determine facts that the parties did not assert without any restriction, and the facts that the parties did not clearly assert shall be investigated ex officio and determined based on the records only on the facts on which the records were recorded. (See Supreme Court Decision 74Nu233 delivered on May 27, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 80Nu493 delivered on March 24, 1981). Thus, even upon examining the records, it is evident that the fact that the plaintiff 2 acquired the qualification for sand of bedclothes in Japan on February 12, 1945 that the fact that the plaintiff 2 acquired the qualification for sand, as a result of the records, has no trace as shown on the records, so the court below's decision cannot be accepted as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles like the theory, or in the misapprehension

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)