1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to Article 38(1) of the Medical Service Act and Article 38(1) of the Regulations on the Establishment and Operation of Special Medical Equipment (Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare) and subparagraph 1 of the attached Table of the Regulations on the Establishment and Operation of Medical Equipment, only a medical institution with not less than 200 sickbeds may be installed, and a medical institution with less than 200 sickbeds intends to install the above special medical equipment, a medical institution with less than 20 sickbeds shall jointly utilize it with other medical institutions. In this case, a mental hospital and a psychiatrist from among mental medical institutions (i) under Article 3(3) of the Mental Health Act, Article 12(1) of the same Act, and Article 7 and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (ii) of the Mental Health Act and Article 7 and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged hospital B operated by the Defendant is 141 patient beds, so it cannot be installed independently by himself/herself with a self-official image photographing device (MRI) and a computerized team photographing device (CT). As the Plaintiff’s alleged hospital and DNA department were reported as a medical institution jointly used, registered, and used the above special medical device.

However, C Hospital Article 3 (2) 34 of the Medical Service Act.

As a medical institution falling under a convalescent hospital, it falls under a “convalescent hospital” under Article 3 subparagraph 3 of the Mental Health Act, Article 12 (1) of the same Act, and Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Mental Health Act, and thus cannot be a medical institution jointly using special medical equipment.

Therefore, the defendant's B Hospital is not entitled to install and operate special medical equipment and is not entitled to receive compensation for special medical equipment from patients.

From January 1, 2014 to November 30, 2016, E, and 1,113, who entered into an indemnity medical insurance contract with the Plaintiff, received medical treatment using special medical equipment at the Defendant’s B Hospital. The Plaintiff paid 520,000,000 won or more equivalent to the medical expenses, so the Defendant is liable for damages to the Plaintiff.