2024년 의료법 중요판례평석

The Korean Supreme Court rendered several significant decisions on health care law last year. Among them, ten cases are particularly noteworthy and will be introduced and analyzed. First and foremost, the injunction case regarding the enforcement of the expansion order of medical school entrance quotas, which directly caused the so-called medical crisis in 2024, established the legal principle that the applicant’s standing should be judged leniently. It confirmed that the interests of doctors, who will face increased competition, are not legally protected. The en banc ruling on whether a nurse who performed a bone marrow examination based on a general delegation constitutes practicing unlicensed medicine acknowledged the permissibility of general delegation itself. It determined whether unlicensed medicine is practiced individually according to the specific circumstances of the case and permitted the nurses in the case to perform bone marrow examinations. The relationship with the Nursing Act needs to be clarified in the future. The ruling that if the licenses of some of the co-founders of a medical center are suspended, the running of the medical center itself shall be suspended, is not only poorly reasoned but also unreasonable. The en banc ruling on the eligibility of same-sex partners as dependents for National Health Insurance was politically sensitive, as the legal status of same-sex partners was at issue in relation to health insurance, a social security program. It also raised questions about whether the law grants discretion on the matter. The conclusion of this case may have exceeded the Supreme Court's authority and role, but the legal principles set forth are worthy of future attention. In the context of private medical cost reimbursement insurance, the Court emphasized the indemnity insurance nature of medical cost reimbursement insurance and the prohibition against profiteering. It also highlighted efforts to prevent insurers from directly seeking the return of improperly spent benefits from medical institutions. Other notable cases include the careful interpretation of a defendant’s statements during cross-examination in a criminal medical malpractice case and the holding that avoiding filling out a death certificate that would have exposed the defendant to criminal charges of medical malpractice does not constitute the misrepresentation of a death certificate. The en banc decision challenging the legality of an injunction against gatherings in religious institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic is the first time our Supreme Court has explicitly addressed an issue that has been considered in other countries for the same reason.