(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.12.03 2014누54488

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.12.03 2014누54488

과징금부과처분취소

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s penalty surcharge of KRW 41,401,320, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on June 11, 2013, and June 26, 2013.

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for the dismissal of the following and the replacement of the tenth and the tenth and the tenth and the tenth shall be made as follows: therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The term "Enforcement Rules of the Medical Care Assistance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 208, Sept. 13, 2013)" in the second, third, third, and third, 17, 18, and 12, shall be deleted as follows: "The Enforcement Rules of the Medical Care Assistance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 226, Dec. 13, 2013)"; the second, third, 18 through 20, the third, and 15, and 27th, shall be deleted.

The 6th 8th stm of the judgment of the first instance court is that “the number of days of hospitalization is considered to be the reference and the number of days of hospitalization shall be confirmed and adjusted at the meeting of the court,” and “the number of days of hospitalization at the meeting of the Internet evasion site to calculate the differential rate system of hospitalization in a convalescent hospital shall be determined automatically in connection with the patient evaluation in case of individual claims of the patient.”

The part of the first instance court’s 6th and 7th 4th 7th tier. The part of the first instance court’s 9th 9 is to be amended as follows, and the part of the 9,10th 4, and the 5th th th th th th eth 9 is deleted. The Plaintiff needs to modify the claim software that can derive the number of inpatients as the criteria for the application of the differential nursing workforce are modified. However, E did not apply for an examination to the chief of the ordinary instance court as the program of this case was modified, and the chief of the ordinary instance court did not return the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of expenses using the program of this case where the change was not applied. However, the differential index is calculated by directly inputting the number of inpatients on the ordinary instance homepage, separate from the claim software

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2014.06.13 2013구합18285

-서울행정법원 2018.02.22 2017구합87005

-서울행정법원 2014.07.24 2013구합63988

-서울행정법원 2014.10.07 2014구합50262

-서울행정법원 2014.04.29 2013구합56546