1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant's supplementary or supplementary determination as to the part concerning which the defendant contests as the grounds for appeal as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional and supplementary judgments

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant is not the operator of the hospital, and that he is not the operator of the hospital.

Even if a civil trial is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal trial already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence. Thus, unless there are special circumstances where it is deemed difficult to adopt the factual judgment in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, it cannot be recognized that the facts against this will be opposed.

(1) In light of the purport of the entire argument in the statement Nos. 1 and 8 as of December 7, 1990, the Defendant was convicted of having committed a violation of the Medical Service Act that employed a medical institution, a doctor, from April 24, 2009 to August 2009, and established a medical institution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu2186, Dec. 7, 1990). In light of the purport of the entire argument, the Defendant was found guilty of having committed a violation of the Medical Service Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da1029, Apr. 10, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2015No971 and Supreme Court Decision 2016Do2468, Feb. 24, 2006).

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff was found to have submitted false documents regarding the assertion that the extinctive prescription has expired, and the designation of a hospital specializing in pneumoconiosis as of October 5, 2009 was revoked, and E, etc. was punished for the crime of interference with business, and the plaintiff suffered losses and the perpetrator around that time.