1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On November 22, 2010, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion recovered KRW 12,728,540 from the Plaintiff’s hospital’s 2,076 medical care benefits paid to the Plaintiff’s 2,076 radiation photographing case, which was conducted between January 1, 2009 and August 30, 2010. Among them, the Plaintiff was indicted for criminal facts such as violation of the Medical Service Act and was tried to have a criminal trial, and the Plaintiff was not guilty of part of the medical care benefits.

Therefore, the Defendant’s amount recovered from the Plaintiff, excluding the above 100 times, constitutes unjust enrichment and thus, the amount of KRW 12,114,856 of the medical care benefits recovered from 100,000, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to refund the above KRW 12,114,856 and its delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the determination, even if an administrative disposition is unlawful, the effect of the administrative disposition is not denied without permission on the ground of its defect, except where there is a reason to deem the administrative disposition as null and void, because of its significant and apparent defect. Although the validity of the administrative act is not the same as the res judicata of the judgment, if the defect in the administrative act belonging to the objective scope of the fairness is merely a cause for revocation, the validity of the disposition is denied, and the benefit therefrom cannot be viewed as a benefit without legal cause, unless the disposition is revoked.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da28000, Nov. 11, 1994). In addition, in order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively obvious that the defect is a serious violation of an essential part of the law, and objectively obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and apparent, it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law from a teleological perspective and, at the same time, to reasonably consider the specificity of

With respect to a certain legal relationship or fact-finding by an administrative agency, any Act.