Analysis of all Issues Related to the Greenland International Medical Center Case

Abstract

Since 2004, when discussions on for-profit hospitals began in earnest, there has been a sharp controversy over whether or not to grant permission. Greenland International Medical Center is the first case of dispute over permission to open a for-profit hospital, and it is meaningful in that it explains the relationship between Korea’s medical system and permission for a for-profit hospital. In this case, permission for a for-profit hospital was granted on the condition that treatment was prohibited for locals, and the possibility of adding such a subordiante clause depended on whether the permission for a for-profit hospital was a permission or a patent. In the first trial, it was judged to the effect that the permission of a for-profit hospital obtained by attaching a subordiante clause was illegal, even though it was regarded as the permission of a medical institution and a subordiante clause could not be attached to an act of detention or discretionary detention. On the other hand, in the second trial, it was judged that the license for a for-profit hospital should be regarded as patent in Korea’s medical system, which adopts the mandatory designation system for medical institutions, so a subordiante clause could also be attached, and the subordiante clause restricting the treatment of locals was legitimate. However, if a for-profit hospital is recognized as an exception in the medical system of Korea, which adpots the mandatory designation system for medical institutions, there is room for the nature of the permission to be judged differently. In cases where interest are acute, such as this case, deliberative democracy is being adopted, and this deliberative democracy is considered a desirable direction for modern administration in that in enables administrative agencies to listen to various opinions in exercising their discretionary power. However, deliberative democracy should not be completely relied on for legal judgements, and administrative agencies should not neglect their duty to make policy judgements by relying on deliberative democracy. In addition, issues that require policy discussion must be clear, and intersted parties need to be appropriately selected so that discussions can take place even at the national level.