• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.253-283
• /
• 2014

Ob das Erbitten der Behandlung durch einen Dritten einen Behandlungsvertrag oder lediglich eine Gesch${\ddot{a}}$ftsf${\ddot{u}}$hrung ohne Auftrag darstellt, richtet sich nach dem allgemeinen Grundsatz der Auslegung der Willenserkl${\ddot{a}}$rung. Auch wenn ein Dritter f${\ddot{u}}$r eine andere Person die Behandlung erbittet, l${\ddot{a}}$sst sich dadurch kein zwingender R${\ddot{u}}$ckschluss ziehen, dass daraus eine vertragliche Pflicht auf Verg${\ddot{u}}$tung anhand der Behandlung an den Behandlungserbitter entsteht. Das Erbitten der Behandlung eines Dritten stellt n${\ddot{a}}$mlich weder einen Antrag dar, noch ensteht dadurch ein Rechtsgesch${\ddot{a}}$ft zwischen dem Behandlungerbitter und dem Behandelnden. Stellt das Erbitten der Behandlung durch den Dritten eben kein Rechtsgesch${\ddot{a}}$ft dar, handelt es sich um eine Behandlung ohne gesetzliche Pflichten. Dadurch ist f${\ddot{u}}$r den Behandelten eine Gesch${\ddot{a}}$ftsf${\ddot{u}}$hrung ohne Auftrag er${\ddot{o}}$ffnet. Wird das Erbitten der Behandlung als Antrag ausgelegt, ist dies ein Antrag eines echten oder unechten Vertrags zugunsten Dritter, oder der Behandlungserbitter hat als Vertreter des Patienten oder Unterhaltspflichtigen als Vertretende, einen Behandlungsvertrag abgeschlossen. Wenn der Vertragspartner die Tatsache kennt oder kennen musste, dass es sich um einen Vertreter handelt, ist die Vertretungshandlung wirksam.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.131-157
• /
• 2015

NHIS claimed for damages to doctors that by doing the treatment breaching medical insurance criteria caused by doctors, NHIS paid for medicine cost to pharmacy; as a result, the doctors caused the tort to NHIS. Following consecutive rulings afterwards, NHIS also argued that the medicine cost violating medical law or medical treatment expense paid to medical organizations are both the tort in civil law. NHIS claimed for all the damages, and the Supreme Court confirmed this judgment. However, within our national health insurance system, the subject of insurance payment is NHIS and the subject of medical treatment expense are also NHIS since the treatment expense is also insurance payment by asking the treatment to medical organizations. Further, national health insurance law is not made to control the violation of medical treatment cases; therefore, the breach of medical law cannot be covered by illegality of tort in civil law regarding NHIS. If that is the case, in the case that if the patients are treated according to treatment criteria via the doctors delegated the doctors' permission by Health and Welfare minister, NHIS acquired the benefits to remove the duty to give treatment payment to doctors in civil law; thus, even though the doctors have breached the medical law, NHIS does not have any damages. The fact that supreme court confirmed the ruling that the treatment is the tort in civil law towards NHIS is the judgment not counting the benefits of insurance payment as the subject but only considering the fact that NHIS paid to the doctors and this ruling have gone against the principle under civil code section 750. If the doctors have breached the medical law, the case should be sanctioned by medical law not national health insurance law, and the ruling of supreme court is assumed that they have confused both with the principle of national health insurance law and civil law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.81-109
• /
• 2021

This paper review about the relationship between the prohibition against medical refusal and the principle of private autonomy in medical contracts. The obligation to this Prohibition in Medical Law does not restrict the liberty of contracting a medical contract. On the other hand, the prohibition limits the freedom to terminate medical contracts. Medical contracts can be terminated if the trust between doctors and patients is vanished. However certain restrictions should be placed on termination of the medical contract, because termination of the contract should not be detrimental to patients' health. According to the current medical law the medical contract is to be enforced in principle and can be revoked only with justifiable reason. At the Civil Code on Medical Contracts the freedom to terminate the medical contract is permitted, but this paper suggests the restrictions of the revocation under certain conditions. The Criminal Punishment Regulations against medical refusal should be removed. Refusal the provide medical service should be regulated by administrative sanctions under the National Health Insurance Act's obligation.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.27-55
• /
• 2023

The term "Collaborative medical care" commonly used in South Korea refers to the case where doctors from different medical departments work together to treat a patient within the same medical institution. Therefore, "Collaborative medical care" represents the aspect of a medical team where various medical professionals collaborate based on their expertise to treat patients. Additionally, doctors from different specialties within the medical team engage in horizontal division of labor at an equal status, distributing legal responsibilities according to the principles of division of labor. The Supreme Court also acknowledges cases where multiple doctors collectively provide medical treatment through division of labor or collaboration and states that the doctor who initially attended to the patient must accurately inform the subsequent attending doctor about the patient's condition to enable appropriate measures. In medical institutions with multiple specialties, when doctors from different specialties collaborate to provide medical treatment, the doctor who attended to the patient initially must decide whether collaboration is necessary based on the patient's condition. Subsequently, they must inform the doctor from the relevant specialty about the patient's condition accurately to facilitate appropriate actions. The successor doctor who participates in collaborative medical care must actively communicate relevant treatment information related to the patient's condition with the predecessor doctor who requested collaboration, exchange opinions, and do so until the patient's treatment concludes. However, the determination of the necessity of collaborative medical care should be based on the patient's condition at the time, and it cannot be asserted that collaborative medical care is mandatory in all cases. Whether there is negligence in the decision about the necessity of collaboration will be assessed based on the legal principles of a doctor's duty of medical care.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.37-63
• /
• 2023

In medical litigation, there are various cases where a doctor's 'explanation' of a patient becomes problematic. Medical explanations and guidance are required from the doctor, starting from the beginning of diagnosis, through treatment processes such as surgery, when hospitalization is necessary for treatment, during hospitalization, upon discharge, and after discharge. Furthermore, notification from the doctor or medical institution may be requested regarding the economic costs that will be incurred due to medical treatment. South Korea's judiciary has been developing legal principles regarding such doctor's explanations by distinguishing between explanations for obtaining consent for medical treatment and medical explanations related to guidance on patient treatment methods, taking into account related laws such as the stage of treatment and the Medical Service Act. Additionally, the Constitutional Court recently ruled on the non-benefit cost notification system linked to the explanation of economic costs. However, holding a doctor accountable solely because the doctor's explanation was insufficient has aspects that do not correspond to the actual situation in clinical reality, and may have a reflexive disadvantage that results in a decline in legal rights. Therefore, the doctor's explanation needs to be examined from both perspectives: guaranteeing the patient's right to self-determination and protecting his or her right to decision.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2022

In relation to telemedicine in Korea's medical law, there are Articles 17, 17-2, and 34 of the Medical Act. Since 'direct examination' in Articles 17 and 17-2 of the Medical Act can be interpreted as 'self-examination' rather than 'face-to-face examination', it is difficult to see the above regulation as a regulation prohibiting telemedicine. Prohibiting telemedicine only with the concept of medical examination or the 'principle of face-to-face treatment' is against the principle of "nulla poena sine lege"(the principle of legality). However, in order to qualify as 'examination', it must be faithful enough to replace face-to-face examination, so issuing a medical certificate or prescription after a poor examination over the phone is considered a violation of the Medical Act. In that respect, the above regulation can be said to be a regulation that indirectly limits telemedicine. On the other hand, most lawyers interpret that telemedicine between medical personnel and patients is completely prohibited based on Article 34, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that such telemedicine is not permitted even if there is a patient's request. However, this interpretation is not only far from the legislative intention at the time when telemedicine regulations were introduced into the Medical Act of 2002, but also does not match the needs of reality or the legislative trend of foreign countries. The reason is that telemedicine regulations are erroneously legislated. The premise of the legislation is wrong, and there are considerable problems in the form and content of the legislation. As a result, contrary to the original legislative intent, telemedicine was completely banned. In foreign countries, it is difficult to find cases where telemedicine is completely banned and criminal punishment is imposed for it. In order to fundamentally solve the problem of telemedicine, Article 34 of the Medical Act needs to be deleted.