The meaning of the "introduction" under Article 25 (3) of the Medical Service Act, and whether the act of notifying the patient and the place where the patient is located without any contact with the patient constitutes the case of introducing the patient to the medical institution, etc. under the same paragraph (negative)

Article 25(3) of the Medical Service Act provides that "no person shall introduce, arrange, or instigate a patient to, a medical institution or a medical person for profit." The introduction refers to the act of entering into a relationship between a patient and a specific medical institution or a medical person so that the contract can be concluded by becoming aware of the two parts of the case. Thus, even if there is no contact between the patient and the patient, the patient is informed of the occurrence of a patient in need of emergency treatment and the place where the patient is located, and as a result, the contract for treatment was concluded by informing the specific medical institution, etc. of the occurrence of the case of the patient and the patient's case where the patient was dispatched to the emergency vehicle and the patient was dispatched to the specific medical institution for the commencement of treatment, it cannot be deemed that the act of notifying the patient and the place where the patient is located

Articles 25(3) and 67 of the Medical Service Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 98No3704 delivered on February 3, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 25(3) of the Medical Service Act provides that "no person shall introduce, arrange, or instigate a patient to, a medical institution or a medical person for profit." The introduction refers to an act of entering into a relationship between a patient and a specific medical institution or a medical person (hereinafter referred to as "specific medical institution, etc.") by becoming aware of two parts (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1126, May 29, 198). Thus, the act of notifying a specific medical institution, etc. of the occurrence of a patient in need of emergency medical treatment without any contact with the patient and, as a result, notifying the place where the patient is placed and the patient was dispatched to the specific medical institution of the occurrence of the patient and the act of notifying the patient of the occurrence of the patient and the place where the patient is located, and thus, the act of notifying the patient of the occurrence of the patient cannot be deemed as an act of introducing the patient to a specific medical institution.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below agreed to contact the driver belonging to Lecar company 1, the president and the chief of the original office of the hospital, and Defendant 3, the representative of the Lecar company, to contact the patient at the hospital 1 when the driver was aware of the occurrence of a traffic accident and the accident site. Nonindicted 2, 2, 2, and 3, and 4, the former representative of the hospital 2 president and the chief of the original office of the ○○ Call taxi, were informed to the hospital 2 of the occurrence of a traffic accident and the accident site, and agreed to give him notice of the occurrence of the accident and the accident site to the patient at the hospital 2. The judgment of the court below is just in light of the above legal principles, and there is no evidence to find that the act of the above 2000 driver was not a violation of the law of the Medical Service Act, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the above act of the 3rd patient was an agreement between the patient and the above patient 2.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)