The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed).

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 8

A. If a person who has a qualification and license of a medical person established a medical institution pursuant to the Medical Service Act and provided health insurance policyholders or their dependents with health care benefit prescribed in the National Health Insurance Act, even if such person violated Article 4(2) of the Medical Service Act since the medical person established and operated the said medical institution under the name of another medical person, such circumstance alone does not lead to refusing the payment of the cost of health care benefit on the ground that the medical institution does not constitute “medical institution established under the Medical Service Act,” which is a medical care institution that can provide health care benefit under Article 42 subparag. 1 of the National Health Insurance Act, or recovering the amount equivalent to the cost of health care benefit on the ground that the act of receiving the cost of health care benefit falls under “the act of receiving the cost of health care benefit

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Du56370 Decided May 30, 2019). B.

The judgment below

Examining the reasons and records, the following facts are revealed.

(1) On November 1, 201, Plaintiff A, an oriental medical doctor, claimed the Defendant for the expenses for the medical care benefits provided by the “D Hospital” (hereinafter “instant hospital”) established under the name of the medical doctor, and received KRW 238,254,820 from August 2, 2012 to June 13, 2013.

(2) On June 14, 2013, Plaintiff B, an oriental medical doctor, claimed the Defendant for the costs of medical care benefits provided by the instant hospital established under his/her name, and received KRW 401,690,300 from July 25, 2013 to August 26, 2014.

(3) On December 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) lent the name of “E” from the Plaintiffs; and (b) established and operated the instant hospital; and (c) Article 4(2) of the Medical Service Act.