beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,091,023,150 as well as 5% per annum from December 17, 2014 to November 22, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Around 2004, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established the hospital by investing KRW 1.5 billion and KRW 900 million, respectively, and distributed 50% of the shares and profits of the hospital. The Defendant, while taking charge of the management of the hospital, entered into an agreement between B and B to take charge of the management part of the hospital, and B to take charge of the care part and to take charge of the duties as “the president of the hospital.”
On September 18, 2007, the Defendant and B established “D Hospital” (hereinafter “instant hospital”) under the name of “D Hospital” (hereinafter “instant hospital”) and operated until November 25, 2009 in accordance with the said agreement.
Defendant and B were sentenced to a suspended sentence of five-year imprisonment with prison labor for three years from October 15, 2015, on the grounds that the Defendant, who was not a doctor, committed a violation of Article 87(1)2 and Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act by opening and operating a medical institution by the Defendant, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of five-year imprisonment with prison labor for three years from
(2015 High Court Decision 2015No213, Supreme Court Decision 2016Do11018) was all dismissed (Seoul High Court Decision 2015No213 and Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1018).
The Defendant, for the period from September 18, 2007 to November 25, 2009, operated the instant hospital with B, performed medical treatment against many unspecified patients, and subsequently, filed a claim for medical care benefit costs under the former National Health Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11141, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “former Health Insurance Act”) with the Plaintiff. By December 17, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 6,091,023,150 in total as the name of the medical care benefit costs from the Plaintiff.
[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole argument is asserted by the plaintiff, and the hospital in this case is established by a person who is not a medical person, and is not a medical institution established under the Medical Service Act, and thus, it is not entitled to receive medical care benefit costs under