중복개설 및 중복운영에 대한 법해석 (대법원 2018. 7. 12. 선고 2018도 3672 판결)
Legal Interpretation of multi-institution opening and multi-institution operations (Supreme Court Decision on July 12, 2018, Case No. 2018do3672)
최혁용(법무법인 태평양)
23권 3호, 335~370쪽
초록
의료법은 의료기관 설립주체를 제한한다. 비의료인의 의료기관 개설은 금지되며 의료인이라 하더라도 둘 이상의 의료기관을 개설, 운영할 수는 없다. 대법원은 비의료인의 의료기관 개설이 소유와 경영을 의미하고 의료인의 의료기관 개설이 의료행위를 의미한다고 보아 개설 주체의 차이에 따라 개설의 해석을 달리하고, 의료인의 중복운영을 비의료인의 개설과 동일한 뜻으로 파악하였다. 본고는 대법원의 법해석을 목적론적 해석으로 볼 수 있는지 여부를 살펴보고 목적론적 축소를 통한 법형성의 관점에서 검토하였다. 중복개설이 의료행위, 즉 의료적 개설을 의미함으로써 개설 주체의 차이에 따라 개설의 해석을 달리하게 된 것은 목적론적 해석의 범위를 넘어선다. 대법원은 목적론적 축소를 통해 의료인의 경제경영적 개설을 처벌 대상에서 제외하여 의료인에 의해 의료행위가 이루어질 것을 예정하지 못한 입법 시의 은폐된 흠결을 보충하였다. 아울러 본고는 의료법 개정 후 도입된 중복운영 금지라는 규율을 경제경영적 개설과 동일한 개념으로 해석함으로써 발생한 문제점을 살펴보고, 특히 법개정 과정에서 보인 입법자의 강력한 의사에 의해 복지부의 유권해석이 형법이 금지하는 유추의 단계에까지 나아가게 되었다는 문제점도 확인하였다.
Abstract
Under medical law, there are restrictions on who can open medical institutions. Opening medical institutions by non-medical individuals is prohibited, and even medical professionals cannot open or operate more than one medical institution. According to the interpretation of the Supreme Court, the opening of a medical institution by a non-medical individual signifies ownership and management, while the opening of a medical institution by a medical person means the act of treating patients. The Supreme Court has interpreted the concept of "opening" differently depending on whether the person opening the medical institution is a medical professional or a non-medical individual. In particular, the Supreme Court has interpreted the prohibition of multi-institution operations by medical professionals, which is prohibited by medical law, in the same sense as the opening by non-medical individuals. The results of this interpretation cannot be viewed as teleological interpretation, according to the findings of this paper. At the time of legislation, the situation where a doctor directly treats patients in an illegal medical institution was not anticipated, leading to concealed flaws in the regulation. To address this, the Supreme Court carried out teleological reduction, excluding the ownership and management of multiple medical institutions by medical professionals from punishment. However, after the Supreme Court's interpretation, regulations prohibiting multi-institution operations were introduced into medical law. The Supreme Court interpreted the prohibited multi-institution operations as pertaining to the ownership and management of medical institutions. As a result, the prohibition of opening medical institutions by non-medical individuals and the prohibition of multi-institution operations by medical professionals became the same in meaning. After the enforcement of the new law, the authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Health and Welfare also had a problem of going to the stage of analogy prohibited by the criminal law.
- 발행기관:
- 한국법학회
- 분류:
- 법학