(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.01 2017누41568

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.01 2017누41568

과징금부과처분취소

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked;

The Minister of Health and Welfare on January 2015.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as follows: “the Minister of Health and Welfare” of No. 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance; “the Minister of Health and Welfare” of No. 13; “the 5th 7th 7th 7th 201.”; “the 5th 10-11th th th th th 2011” of “the 5th 5th 10th th 2011.”; and “the 5th th 10th th 5th 5th 11th th 201 th 201” of “the 5th 2nd 10th 10th 2nd 5th 10th 10th 2nd 200 of the judgment of the court

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this case is the same as the judgment of the first instance). 2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion concerning this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated below, Articles 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the plaintiff's assertion is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated below, Articles 7 through 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance).

5) As stated in the column for submission of additional documents (Evidence A No. 27) for the period subject to the submission of a request for submission of documents related to medical care (medical care) beyond or abuse of discretionary power, the said period should also be included in the investigation period of the instant field investigation.

Nevertheless, by arbitrarily excluding this period from the survey period, the Defendant calculated the unfair claim ratio, which is the basis for calculating the amount of penalty surcharge, excessively higher.

6) The imposition of penalty surcharges in this case on the ground that the imposition of penalty surcharges in this case was made on May 14, 2010, on the grounds that the imposition of penalty surcharges in this case was made on the basis of the imposition of a previous disposition on May 14, 2010, [Attachment 5] Paragraph

The plaintiff did not violate the relevant provisions such as the National Health Insurance Act after the previous disposition.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2017.04.20 2017구합53682

-서울고등법원 2017.11.01 2016누46450

-수원고등법원 2021.03.31 2020누12632

-서울고등법원 2018.02.07 2017누60910

-서울고등법원 2019.03.21 2018누65028