beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 31, 2008, the Defendant and C jointly established a hospital called “B hospital” (hereinafter “instant hospital”) under the name of “B hospital” with its specialized department E in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Annsan-si, Annsan-si, Annsan-si, and Annsan-si, with its specialized department called “B hospital” (hereinafter “instant hospital”).
Since then, the title holder of the instant hospital was successively changed to the Defendant on October 17, 201, the Defendant and D on August 21, 2012, and the Defendant on August 24, 2012.
3) On the other hand, on August 31, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on the part of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the medical department of Gangdong-gu is the name of the G Hospital called “G Hospital” (hereinafter “G Hospital”) with the medical department of medicine, negoical surgery, emotional surgery, and visual surgery.
B) Around April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff established the Plaintiff’s establishment of the medical care benefit cost paid to the instant hospital from August 24, 2012 to December 10, 2013, on the ground that “the Defendant established the instant hospital in the name of D and established at least two medical institutions, thereby violating Articles 33(8) and 4(2) of the Medical Service Act” (hereinafter “the restitution disposition of unjust enrichment”). The Plaintiff rendered a disposition to recover KRW 7,46,715,150 paid to the instant hospital from August 24, 2012 to December 10, 2013 (hereinafter “the restitution disposition of unjust enrichment”).
2) D filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking revocation of the disposition of restitution of unjust enrichment, but the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 30, 2014 (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap11526) (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap1526), and appealed against D. The Seoul High Court revoked the judgment of the first instance and the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment on September 23, 2016.