메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
고려대학교 법학연구원 고려법학 고려법학 제53호
발행연도
2009.1
수록면
167 - 210 (44page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The object of this research paper is to expound on the legal basis of outpatient prescription in excess of medical care benefits by medical institutions, as well as of the drug fee refund of the National Health Insurance Corporation. For such a purpose, the present research paper focuses on criticizing the decision of the Seoul Western District Court, delivered on 28 August, 2008. The crux of the decision was the defendant's plea of set-off against the plaintiff's claim. The defendant, the National Health Insurance Corporation, collected excessive drug fees from the plaintiff medical institution which had written out prescriptions, by setting-off the excessive drug fees against medical care benefits. The defendant made a plea of set-off by a tort damage claim or damages for a breach of contract. The court denied the plea of set-off and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. However it is difficult to abide by the court's ruling. The plaintiff's act of prescribing in excess of medical care benefits satisfies the conditions of tort of illegality and liability under article 750 of the Korean Civil Law. The main points of argument of the present research paper are as follows: First, in accordance with the separation of prescribing from dispensing practices, the National Health Insurance Corporation cannot, on the basis of paragraph 1 of article 52 of the Act of National Health Insurance, collect excessive drug fees from the medical institution which wrote out prescriptions. However whether the prescribing practices of the medical institution constitute a tort in relation to the National Health Insurance Corporation is a separate matter. Second, the National Health Insurance System is based on limited financial resources. As a result, this limits the discretionary powers of medical institutions. The legal provisions which seek to establish the golden means between 'medical validity' and the 'maintenance of the health insurance system' should be the standard of medical care benefits. Moreover the standard of medical care benefits is mandatory in nature. A violation of mandatory rules is not always illegal, but the violation of the standard of medical care benefits should be considered as illegal. Given that the standard of medical care benefits has binding force externally and in general, notwithstanding special conditions to the contrary, such a violation should be illegal. Third, in determining whether the plaintiff's prescribing practices in violation of the standard of medical care benefits constitute a tort the present case erred by failing to distinguish between the conditions of liability and illegality. In particular, the court viewed the nonviolation by the plaintiff of its duty of care in treating patients as an illegality matter, when it should have been considered as a liability matter. The fact that the plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care is irrelevant to the illegaility matter. Moreover such a fact is a legal matter between the plaintiff and the patient, having no direct bearing to the relation between the plaintiff and the defendant. By considering the prescribing practices by the plaintiff in violation of the standard of medical care benefits from the viewpoint of liability, the plaintiff's act satisfies the liability condition either by fault or grave negligence. However such a conclusion is based on legal interpretation, rather than on legal policy considerations. Ideally it would be best for the practices of the medical institution and the standard of medical care benefits to coincide. Realistically, this is not so and that is why such disputes like the one in this case arise. The question is a matter for further deliberation. The present case is being appealed. The author suggests a different method of resolving the issue, other than by means of a lawsuit. An action at law should be a last resort. Since both parties to the case share the common objective of promoting national health, there is bound to be a way other than lawsuits to solve the problem.
#건강보험 #요양급여기준 #건강보험공단 #건강보험심사평가원 #원외처방 #약제비환수 #임의비급여 #Health insurance #standard of medical care benefits #The National Health Insurance Corporation #Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service #outpatient prescription #drug fee refund #discretionary grant

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (18)

참고문헌 신청
/ 2008 / 서울서부지방법원 2008. 8. 28. 선고 2007가합8006 판결 판결서 google schola H. Roland / 1992 / Adages du Droit Francais, 3e ed. / Litec google schola 崔相鎬 / 1993 / 不法行爲法에 있어서의 違法性과 過失’ / 安岩法學 (創刊) google schola 民事法硏究會 / 1957 / 民法案意見書 / 一潮閣 google schola 民議院 法制司法委員會 民法案審議小委員會 / 1957 / / 民法案審議錄 上卷 google schola

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0