logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.05.17 2018구합807
건강보험료 부과처분 취소 및 손해배상
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The Defendant’s lawsuit of this case against the main defense of this case is unlawful as it constitutes abuse of the right of lawsuit, since it repeatedly filed a final and conclusive judgment against the same content.

B. The following facts are significant in this court. (A) Prior to the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition, such as health insurance premiums, against the Plaintiff, at least 20 times with the Seoul Administrative Court, and sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of health insurance premiums from July 2002. Of them, the Plaintiff also sought payment of the amount equivalent to the lawsuit or KRW 500,000 to KRW 1 million.

Article 5 of the National Health Insurance Act, which provides that "The National Health Insurance Act that allows a person to subscribe to the National Health Insurance Act to pay health insurance fees and urge the person to pay unpaid health insurance premiums and take a disposition on default, etc., is in violation of the principles of a democratic state, and thus excessively limits the freedom and rights of the people." The purport of Article 5 of the National Health Insurance Act is that the Constitution is unconstitutional as it violates Article 1, Articles 11, 17, 23, 34, and 37 of the current Constitution and Articles 1, 1, 11, 17, 23, 34, and

B) The Seoul Administrative Court rendered a decision to dismiss a lawsuit on the grounds of the lapse of the filing period (2008Guhap2692, 2009Guhap1006, 2009Guhap13948, 2010Guhap11917, 2010Guhap36237, 201Guhap7854, 2011Guhap30236, 2012Guhap6513, 2012Guhap33652, 2012Guhap33652, 2013Guhap3652, 2012Guhap3652, 2013Guhap33755, since Article 5 of the National Health Insurance Act, etc., which was obliged to subscribe to national health insurance under the National Health Insurance Act, was not contrary to the Constitution, all of the judgment became final and conclusive.

The Seoul Administrative Court is 9.0.

arrow