비영리법인 명의 의료기관의 개설·운영에 대한 규제와 사법적 판단에 관한 고찰 - 소비자생활협동조합 명의 의료기관과 의료법인 명의 의료기관의 비교를 중심으로 = A Study on Regulations and Judicial Judgments Regarding the Opening and Operation of Medical Institutions under the Name of Non-Profit Corporations - Focusing on the Comparison of Medical Institutions under the Name of Consumer Life Cooperatives and Medi

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Representative examples of opening a medical institution in the name of a non-profit corporation under the current law include opening a medical institution in the name of a consumer life cooperative established under the Consumer Life Cooperative Act and opening a medical institution in the name of a medical corporation under the Medical Service Act. there is.
The Supreme Court did not consider the characteristics of each type and ruled that “if it appears to be a formal opening of a legitimate medical institution, but in reality a non-medical person has taken a leading role in the opening and operation of the medical institution,” the non-medical person is considered to have opened an office manager hospital. While judging based on the ‘legal principle of initiative’ that it corresponds to operation, in the case of opening a medical institution under the name of a medical corporation, the specific circumstances of each individual case were taken into overall consideration while taking into account ‘the special characteristics of the medical corporation’.
However, in the Supreme Court's unanimous decision, the majority opinion proposed new standards for violating regulations on opening and operating medical institutions based on the special characteristics of medical institutions for medical institutions under the name of medical corporations, and the dissenting opinion denied corporate personality with respect to these standards. They pointed out that it falls within the legal principles of the law and criticized that it could lead to the phenomenon of medical institutions becoming commercial corporations.
Unlike medical life cooperatives, medical corporations are different in that in addition to their legal nature as a foundation, the Medical Service Act requires human and material requirements related to the establishment of a separate medical institution. Therefore, medical corporations are not permitted to open and operate medical institutions solely under the legal principles of initiative. It is not easy to judge illegality. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the majority opinion through the en banc ruling proposed new additional standards that apply specifically to medical corporations in addition to the legal principle of initiative. Meanwhile, the dissenting opinion points out that the new additional standard proposed by the majority opinion borrows the theory of denial of corporate personality, which is applied exceptionally in civil law, and that there is a risk of narrowing the scope of criminal punishment and creating for-profit corporations. Not only is there no unified opinion on the requirements themselves, but terms such as ‘concretization’ are mainly one of the requirements for the denial of corporate personality theory, and because these terms have already been used in the legal doctrine of legal personality in the past, they are terms used in the theory of denial of corporate personality. However, it cannot be said that the majority opinion applied the denial of corporate personality just because a similar basis for judgment was presented.
Moreover, in the case of medical corporations, they were not established for the benefit of members like medical life cooperatives, and the Medical Service Act itself not only emphasizes publicness and non-profitability, but was also introduced to bridge the medical gap between large cities and local cities. As it is a system, it is desirable to determine whether there is a violation of the opening qualifications through the new standards suggested by the majority opinion of the en banc ruling. In the future, it is necessary to provide policy support for measures to ensure that the medical corporation system can fulfill its role as a local public medical institution in line with the purpose of the medical corporation system.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이철송, "회사법강의" 박영사 2020

2 백경희, "현행법상 의료법인의 비영리성과 문제점" 대한의료법학회 8 (8): 2007

3 정석훈, "의료법인병원의 운영실태 분석과 정책 개선과제" 한국병원경영연구원 2015

4 백경희 ; 장연화, "의료법인 명의 의료기관 개설·운영에 대한 의료법상 규제에 관한 고찰" 원광대학교 법학연구소 39 (39): 2023

5 임지연 ; 김계현, "의료법에 의하여 개설되지 아니한 의료기관의 요양급여비용청구와 사기죄" 동아대학교 법학연구소 (92) : 2021

6 백경희 ; 김영순, "의료법상 의료법인의 비영리성에 관한 소고 : 영리성 도입 여부와 세제에 대한 고찰을 중심으로" 한국의료법학회 22 (22): 2014

7 장연화, "의료법상 의료기관의 개설제한에 관한 고찰" 인하대학교 법학연구소 12 (12): 2009

8 김준래, "의료법상 의료기관 개설제한의 위반유형에 관한 연구" 대한의료법학회 15 (15): 2014

9 문정해, "의료기관의 상인성에 대한 소고" 원광대학교 법학연구소 33 (33): 2017

10 박창제, "의료 광고의 행태와 효과에 관한 경제학적 접근" 한국국민경제학회 7 (7): 1998

11 김영찬, "영리의료법인 허용 관련 법제이슈" 한국법제연구원 2016

12 이경권, "소비자 생협, 농협 등의 의료기관 설립 타당성에 대한 연구" 의료정책연구소 2011

13 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" 박영사 2019

14 신은주, "비의료인의 불법개설 의료기관의 판단기준과 요양급여비용에 관한 고찰" 원광대학교 법학연구소 38 (38): 2022

15 문현호, "비의료인 개설 의료기관(‘이른바 사무장병원’)에 대한 국민건강보험법상 부당이득징수 처분" 사법발전재단 (54) : 2020

16 대한의사협회 의료정책연구소, "불법의료기관 근절 대책을 위한 교육자료 개발 연구" 대한의사협회 의료정책연구소 2018

17 석희태, "병원 개설 법인의 지위" 대한의료법학회 6 (6): 2005

18 김정호, "법인격부인론의 적용범위" 고려대학교 법학연구원 (41) : 2003

19 송호영, "법인격부인론의 요건과 효과(대법원 2001. 1. 19. 선고 97다21604 판결)" 2002

20 윤일구, "민법제요" 한국학술정보 2021

21 보건복지부, "2022년 의료기관 개설 및 의료법인 설립 운영편람" 보건복지부 2022