The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Since a pharmacy established by a person who is unable to establish a pharmacy does not fall under a medical care institution that is entitled to claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act, medical care benefit costs paid to such pharmacy are subject to the disposition of unjust enrichment collection under the National Health Insurance Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da229399, May 29, 2015; 2015Du3996, Jun. 4, 2020). Meanwhile, whether the medical care institution’s claim for medical care benefit costs against the GEPS incurs specific rights by determining the National Health Insurance Corporation’s payment upon the request of the medical care institution, regardless of the decision of the National Health Insurance Corporation, it cannot be deemed that the said medical

Therefore, unless the decision on the payment of medical care benefit costs corresponding to the legal cause of the receipt of medical care benefit costs by a medical care institution is not revoked, the medical care benefit costs paid according to such decision cannot be deemed as benefit without legal cause, barring special circumstances such as that the decision on the payment of medical care benefit costs is null and void automatically, and no claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the medical care benefit costs by the National Health Insurance Corporation is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da230730, Sept. 3, 2

The judgment below

The reasons and records reveal the following facts.

1) The Defendant lent a pharmacist’s license to A from August 2, 1999 to November 13, 2007, and A is a pharmacy under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”).

(2) The Plaintiff established the instant pharmacy and operated the instant pharmacy during the said period. (3) The Plaintiff decided to pay a sum of KRW 523,210,620 for the claim for the medical care benefit costs of the instant pharmacy, and paid the said medical care benefit costs to the instant pharmacy.

3. On February 3, 2010, the Defendant loaned a pharmacist’s license to A from August 2, 1999 to November 13, 2007, KRW 3 million.