{"id":720,"date":"2026-03-23T23:12:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-23T23:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/?p=720"},"modified":"2026-05-03T08:33:04","modified_gmt":"2026-05-03T08:33:04","slug":"south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Can South Korea Care Facilities Self-Wash Laundry? Supreme Court 2024Du55723"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><!-- ATLAS_HREFLANG_START --><link rel=\"alternate\" hreflang=\"ko\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/kr-blog\/%eb%85%b8%ec%9d%b8%ec%9e%a5%ea%b8%b0%ec%9a%94%ec%96%91-%ed%99%98%ec%88%98%ec%b2%98%eb%b6%84-%ec%84%b8%ed%83%81%eb%ac%bc-%ec%a0%84%eb%9f%89-%ec%9c%84%ed%83%81\/\" \/><link rel=\"alternate\" hreflang=\"en\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/\" \/><link rel=\"alternate\" hreflang=\"x-default\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/kr-blog\/%eb%85%b8%ec%9d%b8%ec%9e%a5%ea%b8%b0%ec%9a%94%ec%96%91-%ed%99%98%ec%88%98%ec%b2%98%eb%b6%84-%ec%84%b8%ed%83%81%eb%ac%bc-%ec%a0%84%eb%9f%89-%ec%9c%84%ed%83%81\/\" \/><!-- ATLAS_HREFLANG_END --><br \/>\n<!-- ===== Schema Markup ===== --><\/p>\n<p><!-- Article Schema --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\", \"@type\": \"Article\", \"headline\": \"Can a Care Facility in South Korea Self-Wash Residents' Laundry? Supreme Court Ruling 2024Du55723 Explained\", \"description\": \"South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in March 2026 that long-term care facilities must outsource 100% of laundry to avoid the hygiene worker staffing requirement. Learn what this means for care facility operators and how to avoid a nine-figure recovery order.\", \"author\": {\"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Soyoung Park\", \"jobTitle\": \"Attorney at Law\", \"worksFor\": {\"@type\": \"LegalService\", \"name\": \"Atlas Legal\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\", \"address\": {\"@type\": \"PostalAddress\", \"addressLocality\": \"Incheon\", \"addressRegion\": \"Songdo\", \"addressCountry\": \"KR\"}}, \"@id\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en\/soyoung-park-en\/#person\"}, \"publisher\": {\"@type\": \"Organization\", \"name\": \"Atlas Legal\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\", \"@id\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/#legalservice\"}, \"datePublished\": \"2026-03-23\", \"dateModified\": \"2026-03-23\", \"mainEntityOfPage\": {\"@type\": \"WebPage\"}, \"@id\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court#article\"}<\/script><\/p>\n<p><!-- FAQ Schema --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\", \"@type\": \"FAQPage\", \"mainEntity\": [{\"@type\": \"Question\", \"name\": \"Does South Korea require nursing homes to employ a hygiene worker?\", \"acceptedAnswer\": {\"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Yes. Under the Enforcement Rules of the Welfare of the Aged Act, Attached Table 4, Remark 7, a long-term care facility with 30 or more residents must employ a hygiene worker (\uc704\uc0dd\uc6d0). The only exception is when the facility outsources 100% of its laundry to an outside service provider. The Supreme Court confirmed in Case 2024Du55723 (March 12, 2026) that this exception requires full outsourcing \u2014 no in-house washing at all.\"}}, {\"@type\": \"Question\", \"name\": \"What does 'full outsourcing' of laundry mean under South Korean long-term care law?\", \"acceptedAnswer\": {\"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"According to the Supreme Court's ruling in Case 2024Du55723, 'full outsourcing' means that every item of laundry generated by the facility is processed by an outside contractor. A facility that outsources bedding and linens but self-washes residents' personal clothing \u2014 even systematically using designated care workers \u2014 does not satisfy the full-outsourcing requirement.\"}}, {\"@type\": \"Question\", \"name\": \"Is the long-term care benefit recovery order in South Korea a discretionary act or a bound act?\", \"acceptedAnswer\": {\"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"The Supreme Court in Case 2024Du55723 held that a recovery order under Article 43(1)(4) of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act is a bound act (\uae30\uc18d\ud589\uc704), not a discretionary act (\uc7ac\ub7c9\ud589\uc704). This means the National Health Insurance Service has no discretion to reduce or waive the recovery amount. The full amount improperly claimed must be recovered. This is a significant departure from the National Health Insurance Act, under which recovery orders are treated as discretionary.\"}}, {\"@type\": \"Question\", \"name\": \"Can a care facility in South Korea rely on a Ministry of Health guidance letter to justify partial in-house laundry?\", \"acceptedAnswer\": {\"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"No. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. A 2017 Ministry of Health guidance letter stating that facilities may self-process 'some items such as underwear' was interpreted narrowly \u2014 as permitting facilities to exclude highly personal items from the scope of outsourced laundry altogether, not as authorizing systematic self-washing of all residents' personal clothing. The Court also noted that the guidance was not addressed to the specific facility, and the operators never sought a direct ruling from the relevant authority.\"}}, {\"@type\": \"Question\", \"name\": \"What happens to the staffing bonus if a South Korean care facility violates the hygiene worker requirement?\", \"acceptedAnswer\": {\"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Under the pre-2024 rules that applied in this case, violating the staffing standard for any one job category triggered clawback of the additional-staffing bonus across all categories. In this case, the total recovery of approximately KRW 617 million included both the base penalty reduction (approx. KRW 344 million) and bonus clawbacks for other categories (approx. KRW 272 million). The current rules (effective January 1, 2026, Notice 2025-247) have been relaxed so that only the specific category in violation loses its bonus.\"}}, {\"@type\": \"Question\", \"name\": \"What should long-term care facility operators in South Korea do to avoid a laundry-related recovery order?\", \"acceptedAnswer\": {\"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Operators should (1) verify that their outsourcing contract covers every category of laundry and that nothing is self-washed on-site; (2) ensure that employment contracts for care workers contain no laundry duties; (3) if residents' personal clothing is being damaged by the outsource provider, switch to a specialist personal-garment laundry service rather than reverting to in-house washing; and (4) retain all outsourcing records and invoices as proof for any future on-site inspection.\"}}], \"@id\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court#faq\"}<\/script><\/p>\n<p><!-- LocalBusiness Schema --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n    \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n    \"@type\": \"LocalBusiness\",\n    \"name\": \"Atlas Legal\",\n    \"image\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/logo.png\",\n    \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\",\n    \"telephone\": \"+82-32-864-8300\",\n    \"address\": {\n        \"@type\": \"PostalAddress\",\n        \"streetAddress\": \"323 Incheon Tower-daero, B-dong 2901, Songdo-dong, Yeonsu-gu\",\n        \"addressLocality\": \"Incheon\",\n        \"addressRegion\": \"Incheon\",\n        \"addressCountry\": \"KR\"\n    },\n    \"priceRange\": \"$$\",\n    \"openingHoursSpecification\": {\n        \"@type\": \"OpeningHoursSpecification\",\n        \"dayOfWeek\": [\"Monday\",\"Tuesday\",\"Wednesday\",\"Thursday\",\"Friday\"],\n        \"opens\": \"09:00\",\n        \"closes\": \"18:00\"\n    }\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n<p><!-- ===== CSS Styles ===== --><\/p>\n<style>\n    body {\n        font-family: Georgia, serif;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n        max-width: 1000px;\n        margin: 0 auto;\n        padding: 20px;\n        background-color: #f9f9f9;\n    }\n    .content-container {\n        background-color: white;\n        padding: 20px;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    h2 {\n        font-size: 22px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        margin-top: 30px;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    h3 {\n        font-size: 20px;\n        color: #34495e;\n        margin-top: 20px;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    p, li {\n        font-size: 18px;\n        color: #333;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n        margin-top: 0;\n    }\n    ul, ol {\n        padding-left: 25px;\n        margin: 10px 0;\n    }\n    li {\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    table {\n        width: 100%;\n        border-collapse: collapse;\n        margin: 15px 0;\n    }\n    th, td {\n        border: 1px solid #ddd;\n        padding: 10px;\n        text-align: left;\n        font-size: 16px;\n    }\n    th {\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n    .toc {\n        padding: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .toc h2 {\n        font-size: 20px;\n        margin-top: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    .toc ul {\n        list-style-type: none;\n        padding-left: 0;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    .toc ul li {\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    .toc a {\n        text-decoration: none !important;\n        color: #3498db;\n        border-bottom: none !important;\n    }\n    .toc a:hover {\n        text-decoration: underline;\n    }\n    .story-hook {\n        padding: 15px 20px;\n        margin-bottom: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .story-hook p {\n        font-style: italic;\n        color: #555;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n        font-size: 17px;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    .direct-answer {\n        padding: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n        font-weight: 500;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .story-detail {\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin: 20px 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .story-detail h3 {\n        margin-top: 0;\n        font-size: 19px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n    }\n    .story-detail p {\n        line-height: 1.8;\n        color: #444;\n    }\n    .disclaimer {\n        font-size: 15px;\n        color: #666;\n        font-style: italic;\n        margin-bottom: 15px;\n    }\n    .faq-section {\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin: 30px 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .faq-item {\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n    }\n    .faq-question {\n        font-weight: bold;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        margin-bottom: 8px;\n        font-size: 18px;\n    }\n    .faq-answer {\n        color: #555;\n        font-size: 17px;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n    }\n    .author-box {\n        background-color: #f8f9fa;\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-top: 30px;\n        border-left: 2px solid #722f37;\n    }\n    .author-box h3 {\n        margin-top: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n        font-size: 20px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n    .author-box .author-name {\n        font-size: 18px;\n        font-weight: bold;\n        color: #333;\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    .author-box .author-info {\n        font-size: 16px;\n        color: #555;\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n        line-height: 1.4;\n    }\n    .author-box a {\n        display: inline-block;\n        background-color: #722f37;\n        color: white;\n        padding: 12px 24px;\n        text-decoration: none;\n        border-radius: 6px;\n        font-size: 16px;\n        font-weight: bold;\n        border: 2px solid #722f37;\n        cursor: pointer;\n        box-shadow: 0 2px 4px rgba(114, 47, 55, 0.3);\n        margin-top: 5px;\n    }\n    .law-box {\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        border-left: 3px solid #2c3e50;\n        padding: 15px 20px;\n        margin: 15px 0 20px 0;\n    }\n    .law-box .law-title {\n        font-size: 15px;\n        font-weight: bold;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n        border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc;\n        padding-bottom: 6px;\n    }\n    .law-box .law-text {\n        font-size: 15px;\n        color: #444;\n        line-height: 1.8;\n        margin: 0;\n        white-space: pre-wrap;\n    }\n    .law-box .law-note {\n        font-size: 14px;\n        color: #888;\n        font-style: italic;\n        margin-top: 8px;\n    }\n    br {\n        display: none;\n    }\n    strong {\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n    @media (max-width: 768px) {\n        body { padding: 10px; }\n        .content-container { padding: 15px; }\n        h2 { font-size: 18px; }\n        h3 { font-size: 17px; }\n        p, li { font-size: 16px; }\n        th, td { font-size: 14px; padding: 8px; }\n    }\n    .site-container, .content-area, .entry-content {\n        padding: 0;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    .entry-content > *:first-child {\n        margin-top: 0 !important;\n    }\n    .entry-content {\n        margin-top: 0 !important;\n    }\n    .kb-row-container, .kb-column-container {\n        margin: 0;\n        padding: 0;\n    }\n<\/style>\n<p><!-- ===== Main Content ===== --><\/p>\n<div class=\"content-container\">\n<p>    <!-- Table of Contents --><\/p>\n<div class=\"toc\">\n<h2>Contents<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#section1\">1. What Does &#8220;Full Outsourcing&#8221; of Laundry Mean Under South Korean Law?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section2\">2. What Were the Facts \u2014 and Why Did the Facility Think It Was Compliant?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section3\">3. Why Did the Supreme Court Reject the Good-Faith Defense?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section4\">4. Is the Recovery Order Discretionary or Mandatory in South Korea?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section5\">5. What Should Care Facility Operators in South Korea Do Now?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section6\">6. FAQ<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Story Hook (50-80 words) --><\/p>\n<div class=\"story-hook\">\n<p><strong>Case background:<\/strong> Operators A and B ran a 48-bed nursing home in South Korea. They outsourced bedding and linens to a laundry contractor but washed all residents&#8217; personal clothing \u2014 shirts, underwear, socks \u2014 on-site using three designated care workers. Thirty-eight months later, the National Health Insurance Service issued a recovery order for KRW 616,733,800. The Seoul High Court sided with the operators. South Korea&#8217;s Supreme Court did not.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Direct Answer (40-60 words) --><\/p>\n<div class=\"direct-answer\">\n        <strong>Bottom line:<\/strong> In Case 2024Du55723 (Supreme Court of South Korea, March 12, 2026), the Court held that &#8220;full outsourcing&#8221; means exactly that \u2014 every item of laundry must go to an outside contractor. Systematically self-washing residents&#8217; personal clothing while outsourcing other items is a staffing-standard violation, and the resulting recovery order is mandatory with no room for discretion.\n    <\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Story Development (100-150 words) --><\/p>\n<div class=\"story-detail\">\n<h3>A KRW 617 Million Dispute Over How Laundry Gets Done<\/h3>\n<p class=\"disclaimer\">Note: This post is based on Supreme Court Case 2024Du55723 (March 12, 2026) and the Seoul High Court&#8217;s underlying judgment (2023Nu55469). Individual names and the facility name have been anonymized.<\/p>\n<p>Under South Korean long-term care law, nursing homes with 30 or more residents must employ a hygiene worker \u2014 unless they outsource their laundry entirely. Operators A and B believed they had found a workable middle ground: keep the outsourcing contract for heavy items, but handle residents&#8217; personal garments in-house to prevent the damage and loss complaints that had been coming in. They relied on a 2017 Ministry of Health guidance letter and paid three care workers a small supplement to take on the extra task. What followed was three and a half years of clean laundry \u2014 and a compliance exposure that reached nine figures. The question courts had to answer: does &#8220;full outsourcing&#8221; permit any in-house washing at all?<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Section 1 --><\/p>\n<div style=\"height: 10px\"><\/div>\n<h2 id=\"section1\">1. What Does &#8220;Full Outsourcing&#8221; of Laundry Mean Under South Korean Law?<\/h2>\n<p>South Korean nursing homes with 30 or more residents are required to employ a hygiene worker (\uc704\uc0dd\uc6d0). The sole statutory exception is set out in Remark 7 of the Staffing Standards under the Enforcement Rules of the Welfare of the Aged Act: a facility may forgo the hygiene worker if it outsources its laundry in full.<\/p>\n<div class=\"law-box\">\n<div class=\"law-title\">Enforcement Rules of the Welfare of the Aged Act, Attached Table 4<br \/>Staffing Standards for Medical Welfare Facilities for the Aged \u2014 Remark 7<\/div>\n<p class=\"law-text\">7. Where laundry is outsourced in its entirety, the facility need not employ a hygiene worker.<\/p>\n<p class=\"law-note\">\u203b Remark 1 of the same Table (Facility Standards) provides separately: &#8220;Where laundry is outsourced in its entirety, the facility need not maintain a laundry room or laundry drying area.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<h3>How the Two Courts Interpreted &#8220;In Its Entirety&#8221;<\/h3>\n<p>The Seoul High Court took a substantive approach, reasoning that &#8220;entirely&#8221; could not mean a rigid 100% where nursing-home practicalities make some in-house handling unavoidable. If a facility maintains an outsourcing contract and only handles the minimum necessary items itself, the spirit of the rule is satisfied.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court disagreed. The plain text of the rule requires that laundry generated by the facility be processed by an outside contractor in full. The Court further noted that the facility in question was not handling only urgent one-off items \u2014 it had structured its operations so that all residents&#8217; personal clothing (outerwear, underwear, socks) was systematically self-washed by three designated care workers under formal employment contract terms, while bedding and linens went to the contractor.<\/p>\n<table>\n<tr>\n<th>Issue<\/th>\n<th>Seoul High Court<\/th>\n<th>Supreme Court (reversal)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Meaning of &#8220;entirely&#8221;<\/td>\n<td>Substantive\/purposive \u2014 minimum necessary in-house washing permitted<\/td>\n<td>Plain text \u2014 100% outsourcing required<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Self-washing of personal clothing<\/td>\n<td>Permissible given residents&#8217; welfare needs<\/td>\n<td>Not permissible absent special circumstances<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Outcome<\/td>\n<td>Recovery order quashed<\/td>\n<td>Case remanded (recovery order likely to stand)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p>    <!-- Section 2 --><\/p>\n<div style=\"height: 10px\"><\/div>\n<h2 id=\"section2\">2. What Were the Facts \u2014 and Why Did the Facility Think It Was Compliant?<\/h2>\n<p>Understanding the operators&#8217; reasoning matters, because their good-faith argument was the second major ground on which the High Court had sided with them \u2014 and the second ground the Supreme Court rejected.<\/p>\n<h3>The Sequence of Events<\/h3>\n<p>The facility had originally employed a hygiene worker. When that person resigned in September 2018, the operators signed a full-outsourcing contract with a commercial laundry service. Problems emerged quickly: garments were being damaged by the high-temperature, high-pressure industrial process, items were going missing, and several residents with dementia were distressed by their personal clothes leaving the premises. The operators searched for a solution and found a 2017 Ministry of Health response on the national civil inquiry portal stating, in relevant part:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 20px; font-style: italic; color: #555;\">&#8220;While full outsourcing of laundry is the principle, it is our view that the facility may, at its own discretion, handle some laundry items (such as underwear) for residents&#8217; hygiene management purposes. Any care worker taking on additional laundry duties should do so with the agreement of the facility director.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Reading this as permission to self-wash personal garments, the operators designated three of their 21 care workers to handle residents&#8217; personal clothing, paid them a supplement of approximately KRW 250,000\u2013300,000 per month in total, and formally recorded the arrangement in their employment contracts. The outsourcing contract \u2014 and its monthly fee \u2014 remained in place unchanged.<\/p>\n<h3>The Scale of the Self-Washing Operation<\/h3>\n<p>According to the care workers&#8217; own written statements, the additional daily workload was modest: roughly 15 minutes per day for clothing belonging to three or four residents. The items were machine-washed and machine-dried. No hand-washing was involved. Nevertheless, the arrangement ran from October 2018 through November 2021 \u2014 38 months \u2014 during which the facility claimed and received long-term care benefit payments as if it had satisfied the staffing standard.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- Section 3 --><\/p>\n<div style=\"height: 10px\"><\/div>\n<h2 id=\"section3\">3. Why Did the Supreme Court Reject the Good-Faith Defense in South Korea?<\/h2>\n<p>Even where a regulatory violation is established, South Korean administrative law recognizes a &#8220;justifiable reason&#8221; (\uc815\ub2f9\ud55c \uc0ac\uc720) defense: if the operator could not reasonably have known the conduct was unlawful, or compliance could not fairly have been expected, the sanction may not apply. The High Court accepted this defense. The Supreme Court identified four reasons for rejecting it.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>The rule has been clear since 2008.<\/strong> The full-outsourcing exception has been in the Enforcement Rules since the Long-Term Care Insurance system launched. There is no evidence of interpretive confusion over this period.<\/li>\n<li><strong>The guidance letter was read too broadly.<\/strong> The Ministry&#8217;s 2017 response addressed the permissibility of excluding highly personal items (such as underwear) from the scope of outsourced laundry \u2014 not the wholesale self-washing of all personal garments due to contractor quality issues. The two situations are meaningfully different.<\/li>\n<li><strong>The guidance was not addressed to this facility.<\/strong> The operators never sought a ruling from the Ministry or the NHIS about their own planned arrangement. General guidance issued to an unrelated inquirer is not a reliable basis for assuming compliance.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Other remedies were available.<\/strong> The Court noted that the operators could have switched to a different outsourcing contractor, rehired a hygiene worker, or engaged a specialist personal-garment laundry service. There is no evidence they considered any of these options.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Supreme Court also cast doubt on the High Court&#8217;s observation that the operators must have been acting purely for residents&#8217; benefit because the cost savings were small. The Court pointed out that even accounting for the care-worker supplement, total laundry expenditure was lower than when a hygiene worker had been employed \u2014 which is at least consistent with a cost-saving motive.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- Section 4 --><\/p>\n<div style=\"height: 10px\"><\/div>\n<h2 id=\"section4\">4. Is the Recovery Order Discretionary or Mandatory in South Korea?<\/h2>\n<p>The third ground on which the High Court had ruled for the operators was that the recovery order was a discretionary act \u2014 and that the NHIS had abused its discretion by applying the order mechanically without weighing the specific circumstances. The Supreme Court addressed this directly.<\/p>\n<div class=\"law-box\">\n<div class=\"law-title\">Former Long-Term Care Insurance Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 18610, December 21, 2021)<br \/>Article 43(1) \u2014 Recovery of Unjust Enrichment<\/div>\n<p class=\"law-text\">\u2460 Where a person who has received long-term care benefits, long-term care benefit costs, or physician&#8217;s statement issuance costs falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Corporation shall collect an amount equivalent to those benefits, costs, or fees.<\/p>\n<p>  1. Where it is confirmed through a care-needs assessment under Article 15(5) that the person falls under any subparagraph of Article 15(4)<br \/>\n  2. Where long-term care benefits have been received in excess of the monthly limit under Article 28<br \/>\n  3. Where a person subject to benefit restrictions under Article 29 or 30 has received long-term care benefits<br \/>\n  4. Where residential or facility benefit costs have been claimed and received through false or other improper means  \u2190 provision applied in this case<br \/>\n  5. Where long-term care benefits or benefit costs have been received from the Corporation without a lawful basis<\/p>\n<p class=\"law-note\">\u203b This is the former law text applicable to this case. Under the current Act (Act No. 21257, December 30, 2025), Subparagraph 4 reads: &#8220;Where residential or facility benefit costs have been claimed and received through false or other improper means under Article 37(1)(4),&#8221; with the cross-reference to Article 37(1)(4) added.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<h3>Bound Act (\uae30\uc18d\ud589\uc704) vs. Discretionary Act (\uc7ac\ub7c9\ud589\uc704)<\/h3>\n<p>The Supreme Court held that a recovery order under Article 43(1)(4) of the former Long-Term Care Insurance Act is a <strong>bound act<\/strong>: the NHIS has no discretion to reduce or waive the amount. Four reasons were given.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Statutory language:<\/strong> The provision states the Corporation &#8220;shall collect&#8221; (\uc9d5\uc218\ud55c\ub2e4) the equivalent amount \u2014 not &#8220;may collect all or part.&#8221; This is the language of obligation, not discretion.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Legislative purpose:<\/strong> The provision is designed to deter fraudulent billing and protect the fiscal soundness of a public insurance system funded by citizen premiums and government subsidies. Granting discretion to reduce recovery would undermine this purpose.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Weight of public interest:<\/strong> Long-term care insurance is a compulsory public scheme; its financial integrity is a significant public interest.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Proportionality of scope:<\/strong> Only the amount improperly received \u2014 not total benefit payments \u2014 is subject to recovery. The restriction is therefore not disproportionate.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Contrast with the National Health Insurance Act<\/h3>\n<p>This outcome contrasts with the position under the National Health Insurance Act, where the Supreme Court has held that recovery orders are discretionary because the statute expressly allows recovery of &#8220;all or part&#8221; (\uc804\ubd80 \ub610\ub294 \uc77c\ubd80). The Long-Term Care Insurance Act contains no such qualifier \u2014 and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that this difference is legally significant.<\/p>\n<table>\n<tr>\n<th>Statute<\/th>\n<th>Legal Character of Recovery Order<\/th>\n<th>Key Authority<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Long-Term Care Insurance Act, Art. 43(1)(4)<\/td>\n<td>Bound act \u2014 full recovery mandatory<\/td>\n<td>Supreme Court 2024Du55723 (Mar. 12, 2026)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>National Health Insurance Act, Art. 57(1) (pre-2023)<\/td>\n<td>Discretionary act \u2014 partial recovery possible<\/td>\n<td>Supreme Court 2015Du39996 (Jun. 4, 2020)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p>    <!-- Section 5 --><\/p>\n<div style=\"height: 10px\"><\/div>\n<h2 id=\"section5\">5. What Should Care Facility Operators in South Korea Do Now?<\/h2>\n<p>This ruling has immediate practical implications for any operator running a long-term care facility in South Korea without a hygiene worker on staff. Here are the steps to take.<\/p>\n<h3>\u2460 Audit Your Laundry Arrangements Today<\/h3>\n<p>If your facility has an outsourcing contract but any category of laundry \u2014 personal clothing, therapy towels, incontinence pads \u2014 is being handled on-site, you are at risk. The operative question after this ruling is simple: does every item of laundry leave the premises? If the answer is no, you are not in compliance.<\/p>\n<h3>\u2461 Check Employment Contracts for Laundry Duties<\/h3>\n<p>In this case, the care workers&#8217; employment contracts explicitly recorded their laundry responsibilities. This documentation became key evidence against the operators. Review all employment contracts and ensure that no laundry duties are assigned to care workers or other staff.<\/p>\n<h3>\u2462 If Residents Complain About Contractor Quality, Change the Contractor<\/h3>\n<p>The Supreme Court specifically noted that switching to a specialist personal-garment laundry service was an available option the operators never considered. Resident welfare concerns about clothing damage are legitimate \u2014 but the answer is a better contractor, not in-house washing.<\/p>\n<h3>\u2463 Prepare Documentation for On-Site Inspections<\/h3>\n<p>The NHIS conducts on-site inspections (\ud604\uc9c0\uc870\uc0ac). Maintain all outsourcing contracts, invoices, delivery records, and laundry manifests. If an inspection occurs, you will need to demonstrate that full outsourcing was in place for the entire period under review.<\/p>\n<h3>\u2464 Note the 2026 Change to Bonus Clawback Rules<\/h3>\n<p>Under the pre-2024 rules applied in this case, a violation in any one staffing category triggered clawback of the additional-staffing bonus for all categories. The current rules (effective January 1, 2026) limit the clawback to the specific category that was in violation. This is a significant reduction in exposure for violations arising after the new rules took effect \u2014 but it offers no relief for the period at issue in this case.<\/p>\n<div class=\"law-box\">\n<div class=\"law-title\">Standards for Long-Term Care Benefit Provision and Benefit Cost Calculation [Notice No. 2025-247, effective January 1, 2026]<br \/>Article 54 \u2014 General Principles for Benefit Cost Addition Calculation, Paragraphs 1 and 3<\/div>\n<p class=\"law-text\">\u2460 A long-term care institution wishing to receive the additional-staffing bonus under Article 55 or the visiting care social worker placement bonus under Article 57 must satisfy the staffing standards under Article 48. However, where the institution fails to satisfy the staffing standard for some job categories, the additional-staffing bonus for job categories that do satisfy the standard shall still be recognized.<\/p>\n<p>\u2462 A facility care institution, day\/night care institution, or short-term care institution to which the staffing-standard violation reduction under Article 66 applies shall not apply the additional-staffing bonus under Article 55 for the month in question with respect to the job category or categories in violation; provided that where three or more job categories are in violation, the additional-staffing bonus shall not apply to any category. However, where a nursing home has both a general ward and a dementia-specialist ward, or a day\/night care institution has a dementia-specialist ward, a staffing-standard violation reduction in one ward shall not affect the additional-staffing bonus for care workers in the other ward.<\/p>\n<p class=\"law-note\">\u203b Under the prior rules (Notice No. 2018-130) applicable to this case, a staffing violation in any one category caused the additional-staffing bonus for all categories to be withheld for that month \u2014 not just the category in violation. The current rules above represent a significant relaxation, but they do not apply retroactively to this case.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- FAQ Section --><\/p>\n<div style=\"height: 10px\"><\/div>\n<h2 id=\"section6\">6. FAQ<\/h2>\n<div class=\"faq-section\">\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q1. Does South Korea require nursing homes to employ a hygiene worker?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Yes. Under the Enforcement Rules of the Welfare of the Aged Act, Attached Table 4, Remark 7, a long-term care facility with 30 or more residents must employ a hygiene worker (\uc704\uc0dd\uc6d0). The only exception is where the facility outsources 100% of its laundry to an outside service provider. The Supreme Court confirmed in Case 2024Du55723 (March 12, 2026) that this exception requires full outsourcing \u2014 no in-house washing at all.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q2. What does &#8220;full outsourcing&#8221; of laundry mean under South Korean long-term care law?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. According to the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling in Case 2024Du55723, &#8220;full outsourcing&#8221; means that every item of laundry generated by the facility is processed by an outside contractor. A facility that outsources bedding and linens but self-washes residents&#8217; personal clothing \u2014 even using designated care workers with formal employment terms \u2014 does not satisfy the full-outsourcing requirement.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q3. Is the long-term care benefit recovery order in South Korea a discretionary or a bound act?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. The Supreme Court in Case 2024Du55723 held that a recovery order under Article 43(1)(4) of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act is a bound act (\uae30\uc18d\ud589\uc704). The NHIS has no discretion to reduce or waive the recovery amount. This contrasts with the National Health Insurance Act, under which recovery orders are treated as discretionary.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q4. Can a care facility in South Korea rely on a Ministry of Health guidance letter to justify partial in-house laundry?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. No. The Supreme Court interpreted the 2017 Ministry guidance narrowly: it permits facilities to exclude highly personal items from the outsourcing scope \u2014 it does not authorize systematic in-house washing of all personal garments. The operators also never sought a direct ruling from the Ministry or NHIS about their own planned arrangement, which further undermined their good-faith argument.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q5. How much can a South Korean care facility lose in a staffing-standard recovery order?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. In this case, the total recovery of approximately KRW 617 million over 38 months included both a base reduction (approx. KRW 344 million for the hygiene-worker violation) and bonus clawbacks for all other categories (approx. KRW 272 million). Under the current rules effective January 1, 2026, only the specific category in violation loses its bonus \u2014 significantly limiting exposure compared to the rules that applied here.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q6. What should long-term care facility operators in South Korea do to stay compliant?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Operators should verify that every item of laundry leaves the premises, that employment contracts contain no laundry duties for care workers, and that full outsourcing records are maintained for inspection. If a contractor is damaging residents&#8217; personal clothing, the solution is to switch to a specialist garment-care service \u2014 not to bring washing in-house.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- GEO paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The legal landscape for long-term care facility compliance in South Korea continues to evolve through Supreme Court rulings like this one. Atlas Legal advises nursing home operators, welfare corporations, and healthcare investors on regulatory compliance, administrative dispute resolution, and recovery order defense across South Korea&#8217;s long-term care sector.<\/p>\n<p class=\"disclaimer\">\u203b The information in this post is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable rules may vary depending on the specific facts of your situation. Please consult a qualified attorney before taking any action.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- Author Box (Soyoung Park) --><\/p>\n<div class=\"author-box\">\n<h3>About the Author<\/h3>\n<div class=\"author-name\">Soyoung Park | Attorney at Law<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">Construction, Real Estate &amp; Welfare Facility Disputes<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">Judicial Research and Training Institute, 33rd Class<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">Korea University School of Law<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">Atlas Legal | Incheon Songdo, South Korea<\/div>\n<p>        <a href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Visit Atlas Legal<\/a>\n    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Contents 1. What Does &#8220;Full Outsourcing&#8221; of Laundry Mean Under South Korean Law? 2. What Were the Facts \u2014 and Why Did the Facility Think It Was Compliant? 3. Why Did the Supreme Court Reject the Good-Faith Defense? 4. Is the Recovery Order Discretionary or Mandatory in South Korea? 5. What Should Care Facility Operators&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"default","_kad_post_title":"default","_kad_post_layout":"default","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"default","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"default","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[589,590,587,591,588],"class_list":["post-720","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-civil","tag-care-facility-recovery-order","tag-hygiene-worker-requirement","tag-long-term-care-south-korea","tag-nhis-korea","tag-nursing-home-compliance"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Can South Korea Care Facilities Self-Wash Laundry? Supreme Court 2024Du55723 | Atlas Legal<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"South Korea&#039;s Supreme Court ruled in 2026 that care facilities must outsource 100% of laundry or employ a hygiene worker. Learn what Case 2024Du55723 means for nursing home operators.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ko_KR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Can South Korea Care Facilities Self-Wash Laundry? Supreme Court 2024Du55723 | Atlas Legal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"South Korea&#039;s Supreme Court ruled in 2026 that care facilities must outsource 100% of laundry or employ a hygiene worker. Learn what Case 2024Du55723 means for nursing home operators.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Atlas Legal Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-03-23T23:12:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-03T08:33:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\uae00\uc4f4\uc774\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\"},\"headline\":\"Can South Korea Care Facilities Self-Wash Laundry? Supreme Court 2024Du55723\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-23T23:12:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-03T08:33:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2834,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"care facility recovery order\",\"hygiene worker requirement\",\"long-term care South Korea\",\"NHIS Korea\",\"nursing home compliance\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Civil\\\/Administrative\"],\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\\\/\",\"name\":\"Can South Korea Care Facilities Self-Wash Laundry? Supreme Court 2024Du55723 | Atlas Legal\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-23T23:12:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-03T08:33:04+00:00\",\"description\":\"South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in 2026 that care facilities must outsource 100% of laundry or employ a hygiene worker. Learn what Case 2024Du55723 means for nursing home operators.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"\ud648\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Can South Korea Care Facilities Self-Wash Laundry? Supreme Court 2024Du55723\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"width\":540,\"height\":485,\"caption\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\",\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/author\\\/prinz001\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Can South Korea Care Facilities Self-Wash Laundry? Supreme Court 2024Du55723 | Atlas Legal","description":"South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in 2026 that care facilities must outsource 100% of laundry or employ a hygiene worker. Learn what Case 2024Du55723 means for nursing home operators.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/","og_locale":"ko_KR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Can South Korea Care Facilities Self-Wash Laundry? Supreme Court 2024Du55723 | Atlas Legal","og_description":"South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in 2026 that care facilities must outsource 100% of laundry or employ a hygiene worker. Learn what Case 2024Du55723 means for nursing home operators.","og_url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/","og_site_name":"Atlas Legal Blog","article_published_time":"2026-03-23T23:12:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-05-03T08:33:04+00:00","author":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\uae00\uc4f4\uc774":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/"},"author":{"name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55"},"headline":"Can South Korea Care Facilities Self-Wash Laundry? Supreme Court 2024Du55723","datePublished":"2026-03-23T23:12:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-03T08:33:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/"},"wordCount":2834,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["care facility recovery order","hygiene worker requirement","long-term care South Korea","NHIS Korea","nursing home compliance"],"articleSection":["Civil\/Administrative"],"inLanguage":"ko-KR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/","name":"Can South Korea Care Facilities Self-Wash Laundry? Supreme Court 2024Du55723 | Atlas Legal","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-03-23T23:12:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-03T08:33:04+00:00","description":"South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in 2026 that care facilities must outsource 100% of laundry or employ a hygiene worker. Learn what Case 2024Du55723 means for nursing home operators.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ko-KR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/south-korea-long-term-care-laundry-outsourcing-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"\ud648","item":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Can South Korea Care Facilities Self-Wash Laundry? Supreme Court 2024Du55723"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ko-KR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ko-KR","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","width":540,"height":485,"caption":"Atlas Legal English Blog"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55","name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ko-KR","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr"],"url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/author\/prinz001\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/720","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=720"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/720\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":955,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/720\/revisions\/955"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=720"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=720"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}