• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.155-206
• /
• 2023

When a person with diminished mental capacity refuses necessary medical care, normative judgments about when paternalistic intervention can be justified come into question. A typical example is involuntary hospitalization for people with mental disabilities, traditionally governed by mental health law. However, Korean civil law reform in 2011 introduced a new form of involuntary hospitalization through guardianship legislation, leading to a dualized system to involuntary hospitalization. Consequently, a conflict has arisen between the 'best interest and surrogate decision-making' paradigm of civil law and the 'social defense and preventive detention' paradigm of mental health law. Many countries have criticized this dualized system as not only inefficient but also unfair. Moreover, the requirement for the presence of 'mental illness' for involuntary hospitalization under mental health law has faced criticism for unfairly discriminating against people with mental disabilities. In response, attempts have been made to integrate guardianship legislation and mental health law based on mental capacity. This study examines the legislative process and framework of the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, which reorganized the mental health care system by fusing guardianship legislation with mental health law based on mental capacity. By analyzing the case of Northern Ireland, which has grappled with conflicts between guardianship legislation and mental health law since the 1990s and recently proposed mental capacity as a single, non-discriminatory standard, we aimed to offer insights for the Korean guardianship and mental health systems.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.177-200
• /
• 2017

This writer have thus far reviewed the civil and criminal obligations of the directors of a parent company that sponsored financially troubled affiliates. What was discussed here applies to logistics companies in the same manner. Hanjin Shipping cannot expect its parent company, Korean Air to prop it up financially. If such financial aid is offered without any collateral, under Korean criminal law, the directors of the parent company bears the burden of civil and criminal responsibility. One way to get around this is to secure fairness in terms of the process and the content of aid. Fairness in terms of process refers to the board of directors making public all information and approving such aid. Fairness in terms of content refers to impartial transactions that block out any possibilities of the chairman of the corporate group acting in his private interest. In the case of Korean Air bailing out Hanjin, the meeting of board of directors were held five times and a thorough review was conducted on the risks involved in the loans being repaid or not. After the review, measures to guard against undesirable scenarios were established before finally deciding on bailing out Hanjin. As such, there are no issues. In terms of the fairness of content, too, there were practically no room for the majority shareholder or controlling shareholder to pocket profits at the expense of the company. This is because the continued aid offered to a financially troubled company (i.e. Hanjin Shipping) was a posing a burden to even the controlling shareholder. This writer argues that the concept of the interest of the entire corporate group needs to be recognized. That is, it must be recognized that the relationship of control and being controlled between parent company and affiliate company, or between affiliate companies serves a practical benefit to the ongoing concern and growth of the group and is therefore just. Moreover, the corporate group and its affiliates, as well as their directors and management must recognize that they have an obligation to prioritize the interests of the corporate group ahead of the interests of the company that they are directly associated with. As such, even if Korean Air offered a loan to Hanjin Shipping without collateral, the act cannot be treated as an offense to law, nor can the directors be accused of damages that they bear the responsibility of compensating under civil law.