beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 19, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a business agreement with an oriental medical doctor to open a D convalescent hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”) with B and C without qualifications as medical personnel (hereinafter “instant hospital”). Accordingly, around October 5, 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff established the instant hospital under the name of the Plaintiff and worked as the head of the hospital in Ansan-si, Ansan-si., the Plaintiff established the instant hospital in the name of the Plaintiff and worked as the head of the hospital.
B. Under Article 57(1) of the National Health Insurance Act (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) on October 16, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition on the refund of medical care benefit costs of KRW 1,274,815,540 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, in violation of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, established a medical care institution as a partnership through a contract with a non-medical person who is unable to be a medical institution and received unfair medical care benefit costs from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant disposition”). Meanwhile, on September 6, 2014, the Plaintiff established the instant hospital in collusion with the Suwon District Court Branch (Seoul High Court 2013Mo29555) in collusion with the Defendant as non-medical person C and F.
‘Discretionary' was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months for criminal facts.
As to this, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on the ground that the instant hospital was actually established and operated by the Plaintiff, and that the medical person is not subject to punishment under Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, and since the Plaintiff operated the instant hospital in the leading position, it does not constitute “the act of opening a medical term for non-medical persons” under Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act. The appellate court (U.S. District Court 2014No5777) rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion and dismissed the appeal. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the said appellate court judgment, and the said criminal case continues to be in the final appeal (2015Do2686).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, 21, and Eul evidence 3.