사무장병원의 임금 지급의무의 주체에 관한 고찰 - 대법원 2020. 4. 29. 선고 2018다263519 판결을 중심으로 -

This study aims to examine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court Decision 2018Da263519 (Pronounced April 29, 2020). The hospitals that are owned by non-medical personnel is in violation of the Medical Care Act, Article 33 (2); thus, the contract between medical practitioners and non-medical personnel to establish a medical institutions which presents a medical doctor as the registered owner but in reality is owned or co-owned by a non-medical personnel violates a mandatory provision and therefore is judicially invalid. Furthermore, as the contract considering revenue division from operating such medical institutions is void, the non-medical personnel does not have the right to demand division of revenue to the medical doctor. In addition, Former Supreme Court decisions found that all rights and duties concerning the operation of the hospital were wholly vested to the medical doctor. In the case in question, wages of medical and non-medical personnel fell into arrears, and the point of question was who was in charge of clearing the overdue wages: the medical doctor or the non-medical personnel. The case in study concluded that the matters that have to be taken into account were 1) who the practical operator of the hospital is, 2) how the labor contract was signed, 3) how the work was administrated and supervised, and 4) who paid the wages. This conclusion recognized the individual duty-right relationships of actual parties, and therefore seems plausible. Some Supreme Court Decisions which ruled that the provisions of the establishment of Non-medical personnel hospital are all attributed to the individual physician. However, I think that Supreme Court Decision of this case is a valid conclusion. Because it judged who was obliged to pay wages of the labor contract according to who the actual party is in individual legal relations.