logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.07.25 2018구합61933
업무정지처분취소
Text

1. On February 28, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition of suspension of business of a long-term care institution against the Plaintiff for 69 days is revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating the “C Elderly Protection Center for the Aged” located in B at the Female-si (hereinafter “instant long-term care institution”).

B. From September 18, 2017 to September 22, 2017, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation as to whether the instant long-term care institution claims expenses for long-term care benefits by setting the investigation period from August 18, 2014 to July 2, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant on-site investigation”). C.

In accordance with the results of the instant on-site investigation, the National Health Insurance Corporation, on January 11, 2018, appears to be the other party to the instant disposition under the Plaintiff’s instant restitution disposition (Evidence A2) as the following grounds for disposition.

Nevertheless, in an appeal litigation disputing the illegality of the above disposition (the next lawsuit related to this case as described in E. E.), although the “Unincorporated A C Elderly Protection Center” is indicated as the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that in an appeal litigation pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 51 and 52 of the Civil Procedure Act, only a person who has the right and capacity to be a plaintiff in principle can be the plaintiff in an appeal litigation, and on this premise, the other party to the administrative disposition, who is the subject of

In this case, not the Plaintiff, the aforementioned “Egypt Protection Center for the Aged of the Incorporated Association A” is not an organization with independent legal capacity, but a long-term care institution operated by the Plaintiff under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged operated by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the other party

Based on Article 43(1)3 and 4 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged (hereinafter “Act”), the instant long-term care institution was subject to redemption of expenses for long-term care benefits (hereinafter “the instant restitution disposition”).

Within the period subject to on-site investigations (from August 2014 to July 2017): Claim for the extension of service hours - the criteria for the provision of long-term care benefits.

arrow