beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except where the court of the first instance has accepted the judgment as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On the 4th page 2 to 3, the 4th page 2-3 of the crypted parts are as follows: “The act of dental sanitarian D and E with the patient Frhythm and rhythm for the patient F (hereinafter “the instant medical act”).
(1) According to Article 3 of the Medical Technicians Act, Article 2(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Technicians Act, and Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, dental hygiene officers are engaged in the duties of dental sanitarians, such as radiation photographing and removal of dental stones. Since D and E are medical acts falling under the scope of duties of dental sanitarians according to the Plaintiff’s instruction, there is no ground for the instant disposition. The following is added between 5th and 2. Pursuant to Article 3 of the Medical Technicians Act, Article 2(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2(2) of the same Enforcement Decree, dental hygiene officers may remove fluor, etc., fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s
With respect to the instant case, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement in the Evidence Nos. 2 and 14, the patient F visited the instant Council member to receive the treatment of a shouldered objection, and D and E can be acknowledged that the instant medical practice was conducted by F. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant medical practice was conducted for the treatment of a shouldered f. As such, it is difficult to view that the instant medical practice was conducted for the treatment of a shouldered f.m., dental sanitarian’s duties under the relevant provisions, such as the Medical Technicians, etc. Act, i.e., the prevention of dental diseases and the hygiene of dental diseases.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff.