요양급여비용채무와 손해배상채권의 상계 - 「국민건강보험법」 제52조 제1항에 따른 요양급여비용의 환수와 요양급여비용채권의 상계를 중심으로 -
A Setoff with a Liabilities of Medical Care Expenses and a Receivables of Compensation for Damages
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Since the separation of pharmacy and clinic. up to May 2007, had been inspected, if a medical off-prescription, that a doctor belonged a medical institution have issued to his patient, is wrote out to exceed the range of authorized criterion, by the Health Insurance Review Agency to prevent hospitals from using unnecessary medicine. And as a violation of the authorized criterion, exceeds the portion of the medical care expenses are restituted as a unfair profits. But the Supreme Court ruled that were invalid, as follow reasons;An obligator by unfair profits on article 52, Clause 1 of the National Health Insurance Law must be 'a person or institution who get expenses by fraudulent means'. however, the medical institutions(a pharmacy, etc) not have any profits, but also by oneself use any fraudulent means. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the National Health Insurance Corporation deduct from the next medical care expenses to insist on his right of setoff against the indemnity bond based on the tort(as a violation of the authorized criterion). If so, is such a redemption as a indemnity bond on the law of tort(Article 750 of the Civil Law) of health insurance corporation justifiable? and if it could be, may can be uniformly set off by medical care expenses bonds of medical institutions? It has been the subject of discussion. In this dissertation, considered about legal nature of medical care expenses bonds and propriety of exercising a right of setoff as a redemption on article 750 of the Civil Law in order to protect medical care expenses claim of medical institutions.
Abstract
Since the separation of pharmacy and clinic. up to May 2007, had been inspected, if a medical off-prescription, that a doctor belonged a medical institution have issued to his patient, is wrote out to exceed the range of authorized criterion, by the Health Insurance Review Agency to prevent hospitals from using unnecessary medicine. And as a violation of the authorized criterion, exceeds the portion of the medical care expenses are restituted as a unfair profits. But the Supreme Court ruled that were invalid, as follow reasons;An obligator by unfair profits on article 52, Clause 1 of the National Health Insurance Law must be 'a person or institution who get expenses by fraudulent means'. however, the medical institutions(a pharmacy, etc) not have any profits, but also by oneself use any fraudulent means. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the National Health Insurance Corporation deduct from the next medical care expenses to insist on his right of setoff against the indemnity bond based on the tort(as a violation of the authorized criterion). If so, is such a redemption as a indemnity bond on the law of tort(Article 750 of the Civil Law) of health insurance corporation justifiable? and if it could be, may can be uniformly set off by medical care expenses bonds of medical institutions? It has been the subject of discussion. In this dissertation, considered about legal nature of medical care expenses bonds and propriety of exercising a right of setoff as a redemption on article 750 of the Civil Law in order to protect medical care expenses claim of medical institutions.
참고문헌 (22)
- 이은영, "채권총론, 제4판" (2009), 박영사
- 박종두, "채권법총론" (2010), 삼영사
- 정홍기, "국민건강보험법" (2005), 한국법제연구원
- 이상돈, "국민건강보험법상 요양급여비용계약제의 개선방안, In 수가계약제의 이론과 현실" (2001)
- 건강보험수가계약제 개선방안에 관한 연구, "문옥륜", 국민건강보험공단, 서울대학교 보건대학원, ~ (2001)
- 김나경, "역사와 해설 국민건강보험법" (2011), 건강보험심사평가원
- D.Eberhardt, "Zivilrecht und Sozialrecht in der Beziehung von Kassenarzt und Kassen Patient", ~ (1971)
- 野田寬, "保險醫療と損害賠償訴訟, 現代損害賠償講座(4)" (1974), 日本評論社
- "대판 1988.3.22, 87다카1509", ~ (1988)
- "대판 1999.11.26, 97다42250", ~ (1999)
- "대결 2000.6.8, 2000마1439", ~ (2000)
- "대판 2001.10.23, 2001다25184", ~ (2001)
- "대판 2003.4.11, 2002다59481", ~ (2003)
- "대판 2004.4.27, 2003다37891", ~ (2004)
- "대판 2006.7.28, 2004다54633", ~ (2006)
- "대판 2006.12.8, 2006두6642", ~ (2006)
- "대판 2008.4.24, 2006다33586", ~ (2008)
- "대판 2009.3.12, 2008다77719", ~ (2009)
- "대결 1996.12.24, 96마1302, 1303", ~ (1996)
- "대결 1977.5.24, 77다309", ~ (1977)
- "서울서부지판 2012.12.14, 2008가단37639", ~ (2012)
- "板地判, 1985.6.28, 判例 タイムズ 565호", ~ (1985)
