Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant)

January 18, 2007

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition to reduce each medical care benefit cost stated in the attached Table that the defendant provided against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a medical institution that operates ○○○ Hospital from May 1996 to November 2001, and provides medical care benefits under the National Health Insurance Act from December 2001 to December 2001. The Defendant examines medical care benefits under the National Health Insurance Act and evaluates the appropriateness of medical care benefits.

B. The Plaintiff, as indicated in paragraphs (1) through (25), provided medical care benefits to Nonparty 13 and 24, and filed a claim for review of each medical care benefit cost with the Defendant, and the Defendant issued a disposition to reduce the amount of reduction in the attached Form for the following reasons:

(1) Nonparty 13

No. 4-5 Note 1), No. 5, 200, 5, 3, 4-5, 4-5, 5-5, 100, 100, 50, 50, 5-100, 50, 4, 6-2, 6, 5-2, 5,000, 5-1,000, 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

(2) Nonparty 1

Under the 5th century separation certificate, 5th century-100, the 5th century was conducted using cage cages and cages before and after the 5th century, and the defendant filed a request for examination against the defendant. The defendant reduced cage 2 expenses used for cage cages used for cage cages during the 5th century, on the ground that spine separation certificate, but the transition was not observed, and it cannot be confirmed that cages or cages can not be confirmed.

(3) Nonparty 14, (4) Nonparty 15

Each request for the examination against the Defendant for the re-examination of the 5th century and the 5th century - 1,00 vertebrate stabilization devices between the 5th century and the 100th century, and against the Defendant, 100% of the 5th century, 100% of the 10th century, 2 pddiculult plan (non-party 14), 100% of the 10th century, 2 pdicult plan, 4 pdicult plan, 4 pdiculult, 3rder (non-party 15). However, the Defendant reduced all anesthesia, operation fees, and materials on the ground that the 5th century or unstable symptoms were not observed.

(5) Nonparty 16

Of the 5th도요 Separation Certificate, Nos. 4-5 and 5th 5th -1,00, the 5th ebrate stabilization devices were operated under the diagnosis of the escape from a signboard, and 10th ebrates-10th ebrates, and 100% of the 5th ebrates, the 100th ebrates, the 50th ebrates, and the 50th ebrates, and the 50th ebrates and materials were requested to be examined. However, the eburgical 50% of the eburgical eburgical 50% of the eburgical eburgical ebrates and 6th eburgical ebregr 1 costs were reduced.

(6) Nonparty 2

No. 4) Under the diagnosis of the 5th century and the 5th vertebrate, 5th vert-1,00, the examination of medical care benefit costs was requested to the Defendant after performing the 4-5 last verteculation and the tethical tethical tethical tethical tethical tethical tethical tethical ethical ethical ethical ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

(7) Nonparty 17

The Defendant applied for the examination of the operation fees and material costs of the chest 12 and the first 1st straw and the first straw straw, the embes embes embes embes embes embes embes embes embes, and the fifth straw embes embes embes emsems 11-12, the first straw emsems emsems and emsems emsemsems emsemsems emsemsms emsemsms emsemsms semsemsemsms semsemsms semsemsms semsemsms semsemsems semsems

(8) Nonparty 18

Under the diagnosis of the escape of the 3-4-5 inverteculation, vertebrate copicis, and vertebrate stabilization certificate, the Defendant applied the following measures: (a) the studal stability devices on the 3-4-5 in the verteculation method and the verteculation method; and (b) the vertecisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscis

(9) Nonparty 3

No. 4 under the diagnosis of the 5th Twitterosis, the 5th Twitterosis, and the vertebrates verteculosis, the 4-5th Typosis, the 4-5th Typosis, and the 1,00th Typosis, and the 100% of the 5th Typosis was applied to the Defendant. However, the Defendant requested the examination against the Defendant. However, even though the 4-5th Typosis was found to have serious compromise between the 4-5th century, the Defendant could not verify the narrowness or unstableness of the 5th Typosis-1,00 Typium, on the ground that the 1,00 Typium was used for the fixed operation of the 1,00 Typosis.

(10) Nonparty 19

No. 3-4, 2-3-4-5, and 5, 2-3-5, and 5, 2-3-5, and 1,000, under the vertebrate Correculosis diagnosis, and the 1,000, the request for examination was made. However, the defendant reduced two expenses for the above fixed alcohol, 2, and 2, 2, for the reason that the defendant cannot recognize a severe compromise between the 5,000 square and the 1,000 square.

(11) Nonparty 4 (the same as Nonparty 2)

Under the diagnosis of the 5th-1,000 cage escape symptoms and the 3-4th century, the Defendant performed the 5th cage - the 1,000 cage cage cage and the cage cage cage, and filed a request for examination against the Defendant. However, the Defendant reduced all operation fees and material cage on the ground that it is inappropriate to implement spinal separation evidence on the basis of radiation cage.

(12) Nonparty 20 (the same as Nonparty 16)

No. 5 No. 4-5, the escape of conical signboards from the 5th Twits, and the 5ths-1,000 vertebrates under the diagnosis, and the 4-5ths and 5ths-1,000 vertebrates, and requested an examination on these issues. However, the defendant was found to have a serious compromise between the 4-5ths, but the 5ths-1,00s band 2nds used in the above part on the ground that it cannot be confirmed that the 5ths and 5ths-1,00s are unstable, or that the 5ths-5ths and 2nds of the verteband plan plan were reduced.

(13) Nonparty 5

From the 2th to the 100th century, under the diagnosis of 3, 4, 5 from the 2nd to the 1000th century, diversary typology, 4-5 from the 4-5th to the 5th anniversary from the 1st century, the Defendant filed a request for an examination against the Defendant for an operation on the ground that the Defendant performed the operation in a situation where treatment effects can be expected only with the preserved treatment, without clearly observing the vertec stability or vertecopic typism in the 1st to the 1st century. However, the Defendant did not have clearly observed the vertecopty in the 2nd to the 1st century, and the 1st to the 1st,000th to the 2nd to the 1st,00th to the 1st.

(14) Nonparty 6 (the same as Nonparty 16)

Under the examination of the 5th vertebrate electric shock evaculation, vertebrate chronism, vertecopty fluorosis, dyposis styposis, dypium 3,4-4-5, 3-4-5, 5th gypulphism, 5th malutism using cage, 3,4, 5th 5th malpulphism, and 1,000, the defendant filed a request for a request against the defendant for a request for re-determination against the defendant, on the grounds that the 3-4th vertecopty chronism was not yet established and the instability is not recognized.

(15) Nonparty 7 ( Nonparty 2, 3, and Dong)

Under the diagnosis of the 4-5th verteburism and the 5th verteburism, the Defendant requested the examination against the Defendant to conduct the 4-5th verteculism and the verteculism, the 5th verteculism and the 1000th verteculism. However, the Defendant reduced the operating fees and two expenses for the above part on the ground that the 5th verteculism was not followed by the 5th verteburism and the 5th verteculism and the 100th verteburism.

(16) Nonparty 21

The defendant requested for the examination of the defendant after the implementation of the 4-5 post-Seutronic medication, the 4-5 post-Seuticism, the 4-5 post-Seuticism, the 4-5 post-Seutic stability test under the diagnosis of the 4-5 post-Seuticism, the 4-5 post-Seuticism, the 1,000, and the 5th 1,000, however, the defendant applied for the examination of the defendant, on the ground that the 4-5-5-Seutic instability is not recognized and the 4-5-5-Seutic instability was sufficient only for the simple conficulation removal method.

(17) Nonparty 9 ( Nonparty 2 and Dong)

In the diagnosis of the escape of the protruding signboard between the 4-5 and the 5th 1,00, the defendant filed a request for a re-determination against the defendant after using the 4-5th and 5th - the 1,000th 1st stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth stalth st

(18) Nonparty 10 ( Nonparty 9)

The Defendant filed a request for examination with respect to the Defendant, after the implementation of crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp c

(19) Nonparty 22 ( Nonparty 16)

The defendant filed a request for re-determination against the defendant after the implementation of the 3-4 post-scopic agents and post-scopic stabilization anti-scopic anti-scopic devices under the 1-2-3-4 popic stability certificate, the 1-2-4 popic signboard escape certificate, the 1-2-3-4 popic signboard removal method, and the 1-2-4 popic stability anti-scopic anti-scopic system. However, the defendant applied for a re-determination against the defendant, although there is unstable in simple radiation and MRI map, a wide range of surgery is not necessary, and the 3-4 popic signboard escape certificate was reduced in full due to the Do-4 central nephopic view of pressure.

(20) Nonparty 11

A request for re-determination was made after performing 1-2-3-4 verteculosis and pelviseculs under the diagnosis of 4-5 verteculum verteculum verteculs, but the defendant reduced 6 expenses for verteculs other than 4-5 verteculs on the ground that 12 degrees of verteculs do not meet the standards for recognition of verteculs for verteculs in spineculs due to 12 degrees of verteculs, except for the 4-5 verteuls.

(21) Nonparty 12

Under the diagnosis of the instability of the escape from the 5th century and No. 4-5 of the 4-5th century, the Defendant applied for re-determination against the Defendant for re-determination of the 4-5th Tues and the 1,000 Twits by using the metal galles, and making a request for re-determination against the Defendant. On the ground that the 4-5th Tues and the wide range of the 4-5th Tues and the 4-5th Twins used in the said Section are not visible to the extent that it is necessary to conduct re-determination.

(22) Nonparty 23 (Standards for Medical Care for Nonparty 16)

Under the examination of the climatic stability certificate, changes in the climatic of the climatic signboards, and the escape of the conical signboards (Article 3-4-5 to 1,00), the defendant filed a request for examination against the defendant after the implementation of the climatic and the climatic pressure test, 3-4-5 to 3-5 to climatic stability devices, and the defendant filed a request for examination against the defendant. The defendant reduced the operating fees and two materials band band 2 expenses for the above Section on the ground that the climatic climatics in need of the climatic climatics between the 3-4 to climatics are not confirmed and unstable.

(23) Nonparty 8

Under the diagnosis of the 5th century-1,000, the defendant filed a request for re-examination against the defendant for re-explosion after performing the re-explosion by using the 5th century re-exploitation and conloitation method, the 5th century-1,000 conloitation method, post-exploitation method, and cage. The defendant filed a request for examination against the defendant for re-exploitation. The above patient had experience in disc operation in 200 and appealed for more than five months, and simple radiation photographs and MRI No. 5th - 1,00 were re-exploitation of the left side, but there was no disease that may cause symptoms to the right side, but the narrow left side of the conloitation method was reduced one expense used on the right side because it can be restored by cage and mechanism.

(24) Nonparty 24

After implementing a system for stabilization of 12 chest - 1-2-3-4-5 with the diagnosis of chronological change, chronological change, chronological depression, and chronological stability, the defendant applied for an examination against the defendant. However, the defendant reduced all spine surgery fees and materials used therefor on the ground that it cannot be recognized that the correction is necessary in light of the radiation opinion, or that it cannot be recognized that the degree of instability requires a wide range of surgery.

(25) Nonparty 25

Under the 3-4-5 and 5th 5th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e

C. The defendant made a disposition to reduce the amount of reduction in the attached Form among the plaintiff's request for examination on each date of disposition listed in the attached Form.

【Ground for Recognition: The entries in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul’s Evidence Nos. 6 through 9, Eul’s Evidence Nos. 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 32, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. The plaintiff's assertion

First, it is illegal that setting the medical care benefit standards in a limited and uniform manner with respect to medical practice which has no choice but to change at all times due to the development of medical science and the advancement of medical technology is excessively restricting the right to receive high-quality medical care, the right to select medical care and the right to medical care.

Second, even if the details of the criteria and methods for applying medical care benefits prescribed by the defendant's side are not illegal, the criteria for "the method of performing vertecary surgery using verteculty and cage surgery using verteculty cage," which is applied without distinguishing the same criteria, but the above criteria are equivalent to the pre-existing verteculic verteculth which requires sacrifice of vertebrate, and the above criteria should be interpreted flexibly since the Graf procedure conducted by the plaintiff for each patient is a new verteculic operation that prevents from changing into verteculum by preserving the exerciseivity of verteculs entirely different from the above criteria, it should be interpreted more flexibly.

4. Determination

(a) Scope of medical care benefits in national health insurance;

Inasmuch as it is recognized that there is no negligence as a result of the diagnosis of a doctor's disease, the decision whether to take any measure as an applicable law shall be made by the doctor's own decision according to the patient's situation and other professional knowledge and experience based on it, and as long as several measures which may be considered as being taken as a rational measure are taken as a doctor, it belongs to the scope of the doctor's discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da45379 delivered on March 26, 199). However, the discretion of the medical treatment is bound to have certain limitations for the following reasons. First, in the internal aspect of reasonableness of the medical treatment itself, in a case where it is obviously lacking rationality in the doctor's method of diagnosis, the discretion of the medical treatment should be deemed to have been deviated from the doctor's discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu181 delivered on October 28, 1986).

Meanwhile, in full view of various circumstances, such as the fact that the purpose of health insurance is to improve national health and promote social security by providing citizens with insurance benefits for the prevention, diagnosis, and rehabilitation of diseases and injury, and for childbirth and death, and for the improvement of health, and the payment of health care benefit expenses is based on the insured’s insurance premiums, damage or damage arising from the payment of health care benefit for improper health care benefits is bound not only to be borne by the patient concerned but also by the general public who has paid insurance premiums ultimately, it is impossible to avoid a policy decision by taking into account financial factors in recognition of health care benefits, and it cannot be deemed that it violates the Constitution that requires the Minister of Health and Welfare to determine the standards or details of health care benefit for national health insurance, and therefore, it cannot be said that the Enforcement Rule of the same Act enacted by the Minister of Health and Welfare with the delegation of the National Health Insurance Act, the Regulations on the Standards for Health Insurance Benefits for National Health Insurance, the standards for review and payment of health care benefit expenses, the standards and method

In addition, Articles 43(2), 39(2) and (3), and 42 of the National Health Insurance Act, and Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that, in order for a medical care institution to receive medical care benefit costs, the medical care institution requested the examination of medical care benefit costs by stating the disease, the date of commencement of medical care, the number of days of medical care, the contents and prescriptions of the medical care benefit cost, etc., and the Defendant notified the Health Insurance Corporation and the medical care institution of the examination whether the examination request satisfies the medical care benefit standard, etc. and the Corporation

If so, when a medical care institution claims an examination of a specific medical care benefit for the defendant, it shall clearly state whether the medical care benefit falls under any of the items of recognition criteria prescribed in the Regulations on the Standards for Medical Care Benefit in National Health Insurance or the Medical Care Benefit Standards and methods thereof, and shall bear the burden of proving that the medical care benefit satisfies the requirements for the item. Ultimately, in this case, the plaintiff must prove that the medical care benefit falls under the above recognition criteria as well as that the medical care benefit was economically and effectively performed by the optimal method based on the accurate diagnosis by the medical care and video materials, etc.

B. Nature and validity of the Review Review Criteria

(1) According to Article 4 of the Standards for Review and Payment of Medical Care Benefits established by the Minister of Health and Welfare on the basis of delegation of Article 13(5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, the Defendant shall examine whether the Defendant satisfies the standards for review of the medical care benefits determined by the president after deliberation by the Medical Care Review Committee, in addition to the standards prescribed by the Rules on Medical Care Benefits Payment and the Guidelines for Calculation of Medical Care Benefits prescribed by the Minister of Health and Welfare. Of the Defendant’s criteria for review of the medical care benefits, the part related to this case

(2)Criteria for recognition

(1) Criteria for recognition of spine ebrates using spine brates;

(a) Prepaid spine;

- Where the triverte is all damaged.

- Where 30 degrees or pressure rate of 40 percent or more for spinal ebrates are modified, or 50 percent or more for spinal ebrates;

- Where the damage to the entire structure of a subsequent large-scale complex has been found in the MRI.

- - Where a significant psychotropic impairment, including a degradation, is accompanied by such impairment;

-Where, notwithstanding appropriate preservational needs, the progress of a liver with severe dynamics or chronic disorders occurs;

(b) vertebrate species;

(c) A communicable spine disease;

(d) vertebrate transformation;

- Peculiar spine vertebrate

·in the case of a patient under 15 years of age with a total of at least 40 degrees;

·in the case of a patient with at least 50 degrees old;

· Where he/she is accompanied by fluorites;

- Maternity measuring instruments

In spite of appropriate preservational requirements, if two or more of the following opinions can be confirmed as a patient whose severe vertebrate spawn symptoms continue:

· 25 degrees of radiation photographs only on the side;

· 20 degrees et al.

· Obbbsia lebsia

However, in the case of an excessive long-term installment, more strict standards should be applied in terms of the measurement of each map, the degree of symptoms, the recognition of post-explosive conformity, etc.

(e) In cases of vertebrate diseases, it shall be recognized when there are relevant matters in accordance with the standards for recognition of use of vertebrate diseases using vertebrates, and the standards for recognition shall be the same.

(2) Criteria for recognition of materials for medical treatment

Stand-alone cage andcombined cage can be identified as follows:

(1) CAGE Single Use (Stand-alone)

(1) Notwithstanding appropriate preservational necessity laws for at least six months, where a change in the happiness in the MRI is limited to only one-2 minutes, and a compromise is accompanied at obvious intervals of drillings.

(2) Grade 1 vertebrate crumde certificate

(3) Where it is inevitable to wide ex post facto tension from the escape certificate of a severe vertebrate sponism or any convergrative signboard escape certificate which occurs after the surgery on blood transfusion.

(4) The hugege herherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherhera in an

(5) Gold machine: Alleys, where the distance between drillings is not less than 12mm, a part of the previous livering method, infectious disease, etc.

* The above criteria are applied to all kinds of cage (the kinds of cage are classified as notified in the list of salaries of materials for medical treatment).

(2) The use of CAGE enlisted (Commoned cage)

(1) vertebrate dyenetism

(2) Where the MRI foreminal tensis is clearly observed and clinical symptoms therefrom are accompanied thereby.

(3) Where it is inevitable to wide ex post facto tension from the escape certificate of a severe vertebrate sponism or any convergrative signboard escape certificate which occurs after the surgery on blood transfusion.

(4) The hugege herherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherherhera in an

(5) Gold period: Infectious disease, previous cage use, etc.

* Special-type Cageage and cage sub-satis not recognized for sick purposes (the kinds of cage are classified as notified in the list of salaries for material for medical treatment).

(3) Criteria for recognition of vertebrate crythy and crythy inverte crythy crythy using vertebrate crythys (including apparatus and apparatus crythys) (as of November 15, 201)

Without regard to the classification of spine crypism using the post-deflacation machinery and cage convergence method using cage, the pathology of the post-deflacation machinery is recognized in the following cases without distinction between the post-deflacation machinery and the post-deflacation method.

- - The following:

(a) Spodylolisis Grade II, III;

(b) In the case of Spoonythic spoonylisisis Grade I, when both Isthmus dexe is held;

(c) Recognition is limited to Level in cases where debrogenososis or severe ndowing is clearly verified X-ray and clinical symptoms are accompanied by Formaminal Stenososis;

(d) Where the surgery, including Wides Facetey, has become clear;

(3) The evaluation of the appropriateness of medical care benefits under Article 56 of the Act must be based on the criteria that are appropriate for the realization of public interest to improve national health and promote social security as an area requiring medical and professional judgment on the medical aspect and cost-effective aspect. Thus, within the scope of the evaluation, the determination of the standard necessary for the evaluation is also belonging to the defendant's discretion unless otherwise provided by the law, and the determination of the standard is also subject to the defendant's discretion, unless there are special circumstances where the established standard is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable. Therefore, in examining the illegality of the above evaluation, it is impossible for the court to judge what evaluation should be based on the same position as the defendant and to discuss the propriety compared with the defendant's evaluation. If the defendant makes a disposition in accordance with the relevant law and the examination criteria, the court should consider only the deviation or abuse of discretionary power in consideration of the possibility of determining public interest based on the discretion of the administrative agency, and the examination of such deviation or abuse of discretionary power and the principle of proportionality and equality.

C. Determination on the part of the Graf’s practice

If the testimony of Non-Party 26 is added to the above purport of Gap evidence 3: 1 to 3; 2000 additional vertebrate 2; 3) additional vertebrate 1 to patients; 4) additional vertebrate 2; 5) additional vertebrate 2; 4) additional vertebrate 2; 4) new vertebrate 1 to the maximum extent possible; 4) additional vertebrate 3; 5) additional vertebrate 9; 4) additional vertebrate 2; 5) additional vertebrate 9; 4) additional vertebrate 1 to the extent that it is difficult to find out the causes of efficulic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic effic ec.

D. Determination on individual patients

(1) Nonparty 13

The argument is that the need for operation is recognized because the secondary instability between the 4-5 trends has already occurred by removing the nuclear power between the 4-5 trends at the time of the opening of the operation department for the stabilization of the 5th century-1,000s.

The judgment: It cannot be deemed that the instability between 4-5 in radiation is clearly recognized, and the operation should be carried out only in the spine segment in question due to the wide range of physical damage caused by the operation and the occurrence of the instability after spine operation. The probability of the instability after spine operation is about 8.6% after spine coloning, 1.7% after simple confratation, and the Graf procedure constitutes a fixed alcohol such as dratation equipment at the present point of general medical view, it cannot be deemed that the 4-5 in spine coloning surgery falls under any item of the standards for spine refrating.

(2) Nonparty 1

The argument is that the gap between spin-off and spin-off is narrow and the gap between spin-off signboards, which are spin-off parts of spin-off in spin-off in spin-off ebrates, are unstable. Therefore, it is recognized that the instability is eventually underway due to the narrow loss ebbrate. Therefore, it falls under item (b)(b)(b)(b)(b) is confirmed that the gap between the ebbroids is narrow from the ebroids radiation perspective even though it is not so.

The judgment: The radiation shield is observed only, and there is no possibility of pre-explosion or unstable symptoms. Therefore, it cannot be seen as falling under sub-paragraph (b). As X-ray is not observed clearly, it cannot be seen as falling under sub-items (C).

(3) Nonparty 14, 15

The assertion is that there may be no apparent instability in radiation, but patients have complained for severe symptoms, and may be transferred to a famous brate by brates, and it is recognized that vertebrate stability is well recognized at the time of operation.

The judgment: (b) The criteria for the recognition of the sick Treatment B. The items must be the Gade knde knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

(5) Nonparty 16

The argument is that it is necessary to provide an operational treatment because it causes secondary unstables on the 5th estimated signboard when the 5th estimated separation certificate and the 5th nuclear escape certificate are implemented.

The judgment: The plaintiff is not in accordance with the criteria for recognition of sick treatment, and according to evidence, it can be acknowledged that the escape from the RoI and CT and the 5th anniversary separation certificate is observed, but it is not an unstable or predefeasible disease and it is not serious opinion of coarcing. Thus, it does not fall under any of the items in the criteria for recognition of sick treatment.

(6) Nonparty 2

The argument was that there was a 5-5 separation certificate and unstableness in the field of radiation inspection and operation, and the 5-day additional unstable due to the damage of surrounding land and human body due to the 4-5-5 Mestical Mesical surgery.

In the case similar to the above non-party 13, the court below found that the non-party 13 was guilty of the perjury and unstableness, but it does not constitute the criteria for the examination of the non-party 13, since there is no evidence to prove the symptoms or unstableness.

(7) Nonparty 17

The argument is that there is a serious pressure pressure to 2-3 diversifications, it is recommended to provide a surgical treatment, and in the case of the above patient, it is reasonable to provide active treatment because the pressure pressure to 20-30% and 30% and 30% and 30% and 20-30% and 20-30% and 20-.

The judgment: The plaintiff is the plaintiff that it is recognized only for the pressure frame of 12 chrone, 20 to 30% of the first half gurative body, 5 hume - 1000 hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume hume.

(8) Nonparty 18

The argument is the correct way to see the 3-4 Mesical therapy and stability system between the 4-5 Mesicalism and stability. Since the 3-4 Mesical instability is damaged by the 3-4 Mesical disorder, the 3-4 Mesical Mesical therapy is also the same.

The judgment: there is no evidence to regard that there is a clear causal link between MRI and 3-4 under the MRI's opinion among the criteria for recognition of sick treatment as cases similar to Nonparty 13, or that there is a clear occurrence of instability due to a wide range of climatics.

(9) Nonparty 3

The argument contains the concept of uncertainty in the post-1,000 post-20s, and it has become unstable during the operation, and the secondary instability has occurred due to the 4-5 post-5 post-2000s, so the 5th 5th 1,000s post-1,00s operation is indispensable.

Determination: The necessity of the operation cannot be recognized only due to the unstableness in the field of the operation, and the plaintiff is also the plaintiff that is not clearly recognized as serious vertebronism or unstableness between the 5th century-1,000s.

(10) Nonparty 19

The argument is that there is a radiation disease, and the operation is unstable, so it is appropriate to perform inverte climatic cliff and spine cliff.

Determination: The criteria for recognition of spine ray do not fall under the criteria for recognition, since there is no evidence to recognize that the spine brate compromise between the 5th and the 1000s is clearly observed in addition to the overall satisfic change in satisfic sat

(11) Nonparty 4

The argument is that there is a verte board damage, but the gap between vertebrate ebrates is narrow and the gap between vertebrates ebrates is eventually unstable due to narrow gap between vertebrates ebrates, so the gap between vertebrates ebrates ebrates ebbrates is eventually unstable due to b.

Determination: It is not yet conducted due to the certificate of pre-explosion, so it cannot be seen as a standard of examination.

(12) Nonparty 20 (the same as Nonparty 16)

The assertion was a similar case with Nonparty 13, and it was a necessary operation because it is recognized that the operation is unstable in the night.

Determination: No. 5 summary - No. 1,000 in terms of radiation opinion, it is impossible to verify the pre-explosion of the anti-explosion or anti-exploitation, and thus, it does not fall

(13) Nonparty 5

The above patient's assertion: Mashdow's sadow's sadow was observed by radiation, etc., so the above patient's efficiencies were prevented by implementing the efficienculation system, preventing vertebral decline due to the power failure, and using cage when the efficencies and metal power can occur, it constitutes item (c) of the criteria for recognition of cage treatment.

The judgment: Since it is not possible to recognize the post-satis that clearly confirmed in X-ray, it cannot be seen as falling under the above sub-paragraph (c) and there is no evidence to view that the gashow is a adaptation certificate for the operation.

(14) Nonparty 6

The assertion was accepted by radiation damage, and there was clinical symptoms between 3-4 and 3-4, and it is an appropriate procedure to implement a dynamic stability system that permits gymmetricity, because it is recognized that unstableness is also recognized at the time of surgery.

Determination: The radioactive radiation escape certificate or spinon febrate in 3-4 is not clear, so it does not fall under any item of the criteria for examination.

(15) Nonparty 7

The assertion is similar to the non-party 13, there is a vertebrates and unstables in the 5th century at the night of the operation, and due to the fixing of the verteball vertebrate in the 4-5th century, it is necessary to perform the operation since the 5th century is not unstable due to the surrounding land and human damage.

Determination: there is no evidence to recognize the unstableness of the 5th century or the 1,000 Ebrates, and there is no evidence to prove the progress due to the ebrates itself.

(16) Nonparty 21

The argument is that there has already been unstable due to the removal of nuclear power from the 4-5 Transboundarys, and the secondary instability has already been caused by damage to the land and human prices for the 5th century-1,000 stabilization system.

Determination: Not clearly confirming the instability in radiation, but the plaintiff is not able to prove that it falls under any item of the criteria for review.

(17) Nonparty 9

The assertion: The radiation photograph and the operation to see the right side, the 5th eth - the 1,000 post control for the removal of disks. Therefore, since the second unstable after the eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e

The judgment: there is no evidence to acknowledge the escape of a clear conical signboard between the 5th century and the 1,000, and there is no need for an operation on this part, and according to the defendant's argument, the defendant's argument that he only performed a simple post-satise crye cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp,

(18) Nonparty 10

The argument is that the unstableness of the adjacent division is recognized, so it was necessary to perform the operation.

Determination: there is no evidence that there is a serious compromise or unstableness between simple radiation and MRIs in terms of 2-3 main sentence, and there is no item corresponding to the examination criteria.

(19) Nonparty 22

The argument is that there is a radiation disease, and it is unstable in the field of the operation, so in such a case, it can create a dynamic stability of the drilling by means of pressure on the 3-4 summary and post-defluence for the 3-4 summary drilling, but it does not meet the criteria for examination even if it does not meet the criteria for examination.

Determination: The plaintiff's assertion cannot be viewed as falling under any of the criteria for examination.

(20) Nonparty 11

In this case, in a case where the instability between the first to fifth to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the first to the latter causes a clinical symptoms, if the operation of Madn only with the prior to the first to the first to the second to the latter is conducted, the unstable disorder in the adjacent to the first to the first to the latter is rapidly aggravated

Determination: In addition to the summary of Section 4-5, there is no clear uncertainty on other sections, so it cannot be viewed that any item of the criteria for review is also an item.

(21) Nonparty 12

The argument is that it is highly likely that the first operation will be performed within a short time due to unstable situations in the adjacent sections between the 4-5th century after the outbreak of the 5th century due to a multiple-faced illness.

Determination: Preservation treatment should be given priority in light of the fact that radiation is not recognized as a clear compromise or unstable, and that the likelihood of unstable symptoms after surgery is 8.6%, and that preservation treatment is not required in any item of the standards for vertebrate screening.

(22) Nonparty 23 (Standards for Medical Care for Nonparty 16)

The assertion is that there is a clinical disease in radiation photographs, and if only the remaining parts are operated, it is necessary to perform the same operation because it is inevitable to do so due to unstable symptoms in adjacent sections.

Determination: It is recognized that the decline change of the conical signboard between the 3-4th and the third-4 is a change, but there is no evidence to regard it as falling under the criteria for the examination of surgery since the escape of conical signboards or the vertebrate finite c

(23) Nonparty 8

The claim: The cage type has a single cage and a pair of cage, which is natural that doctors properly use according to the patient treatment condition, and that cage for the operation of a new cage signboard is used.

Determination: there is no evidence to acknowledge a severe risk threats between the 5th century-1,000, which does not fall under any item of the criteria for recognition of the use of the Cageage.

(24) Nonparty 24

The argument does not fall under the criteria for the examination, but the feudal stability device is the reinforcement of the human lighting team, which is fundamental different from the vertebrate steel, so it is rather necessary for the protection of the state.

The judgment is that the plaintiff is not subject to the criteria for the examination, and in the case of adults, in the case of 50 degrees of vertebrates accompanied by a non-name between the body, where vertebrates are recognized, it is necessary to do so, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that it falls under this, and it cannot be viewed that it falls under any of the criteria for the examination of vertebrates.

(25) Nonparty 25

The argument is that the patient's emeral change is severe compared to his age, the gasshow is well-known, and the 4-5th century is stable, so it is necessary to conduct an operation as soon as unstable in the adjacent part.

Determination: there is no evidence to prove a clear unstable certificate in terms of radiation opinion or severe vertebrate cooponism, so it cannot be viewed as any item of the criteria for examination.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, in the instant case where there are no circumstances to deem the details of the criteria and methods for applying medical care benefits to be objectively unreasonable, the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful because it misleads the fact or deviates from or abused discretionary power.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) A state in which the nucles in disks due to a change of emerculation and trauma are broken out through the gap of fiber wheels on the outside floor and pressures around the outer floor, and stimulates neutism by causing a emerculation reaction around it.

Note 2) The size of the Secretary becomes smaller than that of the circumstances.

3) In a case where there is a letter or both-way loss on the febrate in spine womb, it is believed that the auxiliary device was 78 per cent if it was allowed to wear a feacul for at least six months and to engage in a faculous activity to the extent that it does not cause a faculing.

4) In the case of ebrate ebrate ebrates: The state in which spine ebrates ebrates ebrates ebrates ebrates ebrates ebbrates ebrates ebrates ebrates ebrates ebrates or ebrates eb

Note 5) The escape from vertebrate via a pellley plate may be a cause for vertebrate, but it is not a cause for vertebrate stabilization, and it is not a rare opinion that can be seen from 19% of healthy people without symptoms.