Supreme Court: "Pediatric Society Blocking Night and Holiday Medical Services... Fair Trade Commission's Fine Decision Is Justified"

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Honam Moon munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that the Fair Trade Commission's imposition of a fine on the Korean Pediatricians Association for disciplining hospitals participating in the government's 'Dalbit Children's Hospital' policy for pediatric night and holiday care is justified.

On the 3rd, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Park Jeonghwa) announced that it overturned the lower court's partial ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal case filed by the association against the Fair Trade Commission's corrective order and fine payment order, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

The Dalbit Children's Hospital policy is a Ministry of Health and Welfare initiative that supports operating expenses by selecting hospitals that extend their operating hours to allow pediatric patients to receive care during nights and holidays, specifically from 11 PM to midnight on weekdays and at least until 6 PM on weekends and public holidays.

Previously, in 2014, the Korean Pediatricians Association opposed this policy and pressured hospitals designated as Dalbit Children's Hospitals to apply for cancellation of their designation. Additionally, they established their own disciplinary regulations to report hospitals participating in this policy and request administrative sanctions, or to restrict access to the association's website.

In 2017, the Fair Trade Commission imposed a fine of 500 million KRW and issued a corrective order prohibiting repeated similar acts, stating that the association unfairly restricted the business activities of member hospitals.

In the two-tier system of Fair Trade Commission cases, the Seoul High Court ruled in favor of the Korean Pediatricians Association, stating that "it cannot be seen as unfairly restricting the activities of member hospitals." At that time, the court stated, "The plaintiff only engaged in restrictive acts to oppose a government project that distorts competition in the medical market, without the intent to influence the price, quantity, quality, or other transaction conditions of medical services."

However, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. The court pointed out, "The plaintiff's actions clearly pose a significant risk of limiting the expansion of night and holiday care and hindering competition among constituent businesses," and added, "It can be seen as an act excessively restricting the business activities of members." Furthermore, it stated, "The lower court erred in its understanding of the legal principles regarding the clarity of corrective orders under the Fair Trade Act."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.