Human material is considered as an independent object after departing from human body. But unlike other materials, that is not allowed for the trading because of the nature of personality. According to the present legal system, the human material is only permitted to donate to the researcher or biobank for scientific study. Bur after the collection, the human materials are regarded as a valuable assets and the collectors want to get more economic gains. If the neutral modulators serve for the justifiable circulation. The economic motivations could be prevented within material transfer processes. In real life, the neutral modulator is hard to find and most of partipants are involved in the economic interests. In this situation, it may be justifiable to permit the person who donate his body material to pursue reach through right on his material. The problem is how to measure the value of human material and how to treat the informed consent. If the essential portion of human personality is contributed to the value of human material and if only his material can be served for the invention, the tissue donator can get economic interests on his body material as his property. That is based on the rule of processing of human efforts on civil law.

Hier zu behandelndes Thema ist ein altes Problem beim Recht, das seinen Ursprung sogar im romischen Recht finden kann. Aber wegen der medizinischen und naturwissenschaftlichen Entwicklung $t\ddot{a}ucht$ es wieder mit anderen Konstellationen auf. Dabei geht es besonders darum, ob sich die Patienten an der kommerziellen Nutzung seiner $K\ddot{o}rpersubstanzen$ von anderen-z. B. $\ddot{A}rzten$ oder Forschern-beteiligen $k\ddot{o}nnen$. $Daf\ddot{u}r$ gibt es in Bezug auf Gesetz keine besonderen Regelungen in Deutschland. Und nach zivilrechtlicher Theorie stellt Nutzung menschlicher $K\ddot{o}rpersubstanzen$ eine Personlichkeitsverletzung des fruheren $Tr\ddot{a}gers$ und/oder eine Verletzung des Arzt-Patienten-Vertrages dar. $Au{\beta}erdem$ ist Anspruch des $fr\ddot{u}heren\;Tr\ddot{a}gers$ debkbar, der auf dessen Einwilligung basiert. Dabei sind diese Probleme $zun\ddot{a}chst$ unter $Pers\ddot{o}nlichkeitsverletzung$ zu subsumieren und damit zu $l\ddot{o}sen$.

The Hospitalized Acquired Infection is defined as the case where the hidden infection or not found at the time of hospitalization occurs during the hospitalized period or, within 30 days to those who performed the surgery operation and then left the hospital. About 2/3 of the Hospitalized Acquired Infection are found as having the internal infection cases that are occurred by the patients' own virus due to the lowered immune system, while about 1/3 are found as having the external infection. The latter 1/3 of the external infection cases can be prevented through the infection management. And in case the new Hospitalized Acquired Infection case occur to the patient who was treated in the hospital, its responsibility issue will matter. As well in the disputes over the Hospitalized Acquired Infection cases, the cause-result relation between the damages and the medical staff's fault and as to whether there is failure of the medical staff or not. personnel should be proved in the medical-malpractice cases. In addition, the difficulties in proving such as expertise, secrecy propensity, discrete propensity and incompleteness will be considered to ease the burden of patient side's proving. Probability theory, Fact based assumption theory, Most adequate plaintiff preassumption or Expressed evidence theories are being discussed as the theories of eased burden of proof. In the result of gathering and reviewing Korea's precedent cases concerning the Hospitalized Acquired Infection, there are only a few accumulated prece dent cases and the attitude of the court also are also not consistent. Therefore, there are the precedents where the cause-result relation and the failure are immediately assumed when (1) timely proximity between the medical behavior and malpractice results, (2) proximity between the medical behavior-applied parts and the malpractice results-found parts, and (3) lack of other causes are separately evidenced; while the are the precedents only when 'the existence of the medical faults based on the common sense' is separately evidenced. It was found that the former and latter cases coexisted. The former is considered as based on the theory that separates the fault and cause-result relation not to consider them together, or regarded as based on the doubts that assumes the medical staff's neglect even though the Hospitalized Acquired Infection might be completely prevented by their efforts. However, the modern medical technology has the limitation as far as the prevention of the Hospitalized Acquired Infection. In conclusion, the assumption of the cause-result relation and that of the fault should be separately reviewed. Therefore, the latter precedents are considered as more reasonable, in the point the faulty behavior may be proved based on the common sense.

대법원 2005. 11. 24. 선고 2002 도 4758 판결은 $\ulcorner$의료법 제21조 제1항의 문언상 "상세히 기록하여야 한다."라고만 규정하고 있을 뿐 "허위로 작성하 여서는 아니 된다."라거나 "허위 사항을 기재하여서는 아니 된다."라고 규정하고 있지 않은 점, 그리고 구 의료법 제53조 제1항 제3호가 면허자격정지사유에 관하여 "제21조 제1항에 의한 진료기록부 등을 허위로 작성한 때"라고 규정하고 있어 위 제21조 제1항 및 제69조와 그 내용 및 형식을 서로 달리하고 있는 점 등을 고려해 볼 때, 의료인이 진료기록부를 허위로 작성한 경우에는 위 제53조 제1항 제3호에 따라 그 면허자격을 정지시킬 수 있는 사유에 해당한다고 볼 수 있을지언정 나아가 그것이 형사처벌 규정인 제69조 소정의 제21조 제1항의 규정에 위반한 경우에 해당한다고 해석할 수는 없다.$\lrcorner$ 취지로 판시하고 었으나, 대법원 1997. 8. 29. 선고 97도 1234 판결 등의 판시내용 (의사는 진료기록부에 환자의 상태와 치료의 경과 등 의료행위에 관한 사항과 그 소견을 환자의 계속적인 치료에 이용할 수 있고 다른 의료인들에게 적절한 정보를 제공할 수 있으며, 의료행위가 종료된 이후에는 그 의료행위의 적정성 여부를 판단하기에 충분한 정도로 상세하게 기재하여야 한다는 취지)등에 비춰보면 본건처럼 의사인 피고인이 실제로는 거의 치료를 받지 아니한 사람을 입원 전 기간 동안 진료와 치료를 충실히 한 것처럼 진료기록부에 허위내용을 기재한 것은 의료법 제21조 제1항의 진료기록부 작성의무를 제대로 이행한 것으로 볼 수 없다고 할 것이고, 위 의료법 제21조 제1항과 제53조 제1항의 관계에 있어서도 진료기록부를 허위기재하거나 과장기재한 경우에는 제21조 제1항 위반으로 형사 처벌 대상일 뿐만 아니라 부가적으로 제53조 제1항에 의해 면허정지 등 행정처분을 받을 수 있다는 취지로 해석이 타당하다고 사료된다.

The medical expenses review system in Korea has developed under fee-for-service system with its own unique structure. The importance of reviewing medical expenses has been emphasized, as the size of medical expenditures moving through the health insurance legal context and its weight in the national economy have increased very rapidly. It is, however, analyzed that the feuds and arguments continue among the stakeholders for the lack of laws supporting the medical expenses review system. The medical expenses review is a series of administrative procedures, deciding whether claims from medical care institutions to the insurer are legal and valid or not. It mainly controls the increase of unnecessarily excessive health insurance claim and prevents fraudulent claim and abuse and checks the less use or unsuitable use of medical resources. It also works a function guarantees medical benefits for the appropriate treatment according to the object of health insurance system as a social insurance scheme. The dispute on legal base of the medical expenses review is about the source of law in the medical expenses review. There are the Health Insurance Act and administrative laws as jus scriptum and the guidelines of review as administrative orders. The medical expenses review should reflect various factors, such as the development of medical healthcare technologies, the health expenditures distribution, the financial situation of the health insurance, and the evaluation on the level of appropriate benefits. It is also likely to adapt to the traits of characters of medicine, and trends and transition, Besides it should judge the legality and the validity of medical benefits expenditures by synthesizing these all factors. And the evaluation system of appropriateness of medical benefits was administrative procedure which was consecutive with reviewing the medical expenses system and it was intended to make up for the result of reviewing the medical expenses in more comprehensive levels.

To succeed the claim of medical malpractice litigation, the patient as a plaintiff should establish the medical fault of a physician as a defendant, and the causation between the fault and damages. Because of the extraordinary nature of medical province, however, this application of a legal principles is rigorous with the patient. In addition, given the causation between the validation of physician's fault and damage is not attested, patient is not awarded anything. In order to overcome a difficulty of patient's verification and ensure the right to fair process, it was demonstrated the lightening of burden of proof in medical malpractice litigation and the acceptance of the responsibility for an illegal act in a prescribed range in the absence of the causation between the physician's fault and damage. This paper deals with the judgement of causation and burden of proof in medical malpractice litigation, and the acceptance of responsibility in the absence of the causation between the physician's fault and damage. Also, this study recommends a tendency of our precedent through the comparative case method of ours and Japan.

The mission of the doctors is to take care of human life, body and health through the medical behaviors such as diagnosis and treatment. Under this job propensity, the doctors have care duty to take the best actions required to prevent the risk according to the patients' specific disease status. Such care duty of the doctor may be evaluated based on the medical behavior level at the medical institution and clinical medical study field. Such medical level should be understood in the normative level, considering the treatment environment, condition and specialty of the behavior, because it means the medical common sense known and acknowledged to the normal doctors. While the criminal suit requires the evidence for no doubt conviction, the civil suit requires more eased different standard. The results between the criminal and civil sentence may be different, because the confirmed former case may lead to long-term imprisonment and even death penalty, while the latter case puts only monetary penalty on the defeated party.

In Product Liability law, the 'defection' of the manufactured products is its key concept, defined in detail. The concept had been already developed through the precedents and theories for the past years even before the PL law was enacted and the concept was listed. Especially, the medicine products need the different approach, because they might directly harm to the human life and body due to their being injected or taken, unlikely other manufactured articles. Since the medical products have the double contradictory functions such as effects and side effects, the defection decisions become so difficult. However, because there are high concerns that wrong medical products will directly harm the human life and body, the decision standards should be more strengthened. The decision standards should include the risk-effect standard as the considered components and make the customer-expecting standard as the final standard. The decision time for defection should be made considering the science technology level when the medical products were provided, not when the accident occurred. It is the most important for the manufacturers to prevent the damages by making and selling the non-defective medicine products for themselves, rather than by taking the legal remedy means afterwards. Therefore, the non-defective guidelines for the medicine manufacturers will help increase the effects and minimize the side-effects.