1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasons for this part of the disposition are as follows, except for the part which is written or added by the court, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 6 to 4 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance to 3) is the same. Thus, this part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added to the 3rd page of the first instance judgment “......”

On December 21, 2018, the Defendant revised the “a pharmaceutical benefit list and the upper limit amount table” (hereinafter “the pharmaceutical benefit list”) to L/C publicly announced by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and registered the instant toxic drugs as medical care benefit items. From the fourth bottom of the first instance judgment, the Defendant listed the character drugs of this case from “A” to “five (hereinafter “relevant patent case”) under the bottom of “B” (hereinafter “relevant patent case”).

Although the Plaintiff appealed in this case to the Supreme Court Decision 2019Hu10401, the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 30, 2019 (hereinafter “relevant Patent Case”) (hereinafter “Related Patent Case”), 3 and 4 are as follows.

"In the absence of dispute (based on recognition), Gap 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 32, 33, Eul 1 through 4, 8, 18, 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings"

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On the grounds that the instant conciliation provision is unconstitutional and invalid for the following reasons: (a) the instant conciliation provision is unlawful; and (b) the instant disposition based thereon is unlawful.

1) The right to property of a pharmaceutical supplier, including patent rights, is not guaranteed by a weak price formed in a competitive relationship in a free competition market. However, under the national health insurance system, the Defendant determines and adjusts the maximum amount under the national health insurance system.

The instant conciliation regulations are practically competitive instruments in the market, where the first registered product and the investment route component pattern are the same (hereinafter referred to as the “same medication”).