Additional Surcharge Imposed for 'Medical Advertisement' Being Too Low... Court "Unfair Disposition"

[Financial News] The court ruled that imposing an additional surcharge on a dentist for advertising treatment experiences prohibited by law, despite having already imposed a surcharge, is unfair.
According to the legal community on the 1st, the Seoul Administrative Court's 14th Administrative Division (Presiding Judge Lee Sang-deok) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by dentist A against the head of the Songpa District Health Center in Seoul to cancel the surcharge imposition.
A recruited a group to experience teeth and gum whitening treatment through an advertising agency at the end of 2019 and requested that reviews be posted on an internet blog. A total of about 30 people participated in the experience, and each received 10,000 won in cash.
In September 2021, whistleblower B reported to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission that "A conducted advertisements of treatment experiences prohibited under the Medical Service Act," and the commission sent the related materials to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency and Songpa District Office. The prosecution, which received the case from the police, issued a summary order of a 1 million won fine to A, and the Songpa District Health Center imposed a surcharge of 15 million won.
However, B filed a complaint stating that "the surcharge should be recalculated based on the amended enforcement decree," and the health center additionally imposed a surcharge of 199.23 million won, equivalent to a one-month business suspension. The amended enforcement decree of the Medical Service Act significantly raises the surcharge cap from 50 million won to 1 billion won and includes provisions to increase the daily surcharge amount for medical institutions with annual revenues exceeding 100 million won.
A, dissatisfied with the disposition, filed a lawsuit, and the court sided with A.
The court stated, "The violation in this case constitutes a single medical law violation offense encompassing all actions carried out in close temporal proximity using the same method through the same advertising agency," and "It is not permissible to impose separate sanctions for each individual post."
Furthermore, "Although the treatment experience posts continued to exist on the internet blog without being deleted before the effective date of the amended law, it was correct to calculate and impose the surcharge according to the amended enforcement decree," the court explained, "but it is not permissible to change or impose additional surcharges to the detriment of A."
Considering that over 50 treatment experience posts remained after the amended enforcement decree took effect, the principle is that the amended regulations should apply. However, since the health center had already identified all violations when it first imposed the surcharge, the court concluded that appropriate sanctions should have been imposed within the scope defined by the law.
scottchoi15@fnnews.com Choi Eun-sol Reporter