• Journal of KSNVE
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.552-554
• /
• 1997

산업의 고도성장으로 물질문명은 발전하고 있으나 원치않는 환경오염의 피해가 발생하고 있으며, 피해의 양상도 인체의 건강에 미치는 피해와 재산사의 피해 등 그 양태가 매우 다양하다. 환경오염피해가 발생하면 피해자는 책임 있는 자에게 피해의 배상을 요구하고 정당한 배상을 받도록 해야 할 것이나 당사자간의 의견차로 인하여 분쟁이 빈발하고, 이러한 환경분쟁이 주로 환경오염 피해분쟁조정법에 의한 조정으로 해결되고 있으며, 특히 건설공사로 인한 소음.진동 피해분쟁이 전체 환경분쟁의 63%에 달하고 있어 관련법규를 소개함으로써 분쟁의 발생 예방과 해결에 도움이 되고자 한다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.139-171
• /
• 2018

The 「Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractice and Mediation of Medical Disputes」(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes') provides that the state should compensate the victims of medical accidents occurred irresistibly in childbirth despite that health and medical service personnel fulfilled their duty of care for their damage within the range of its budget(Article 46 of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes). Given that victims of medical accidents could expect demage recovery only through lawsuits thus far, this act can be said to be a groundbreaking act. However, However, as 30% of the costs for such medical accident compensation projects are borne by those who have records of childbirth among the founders of health and medical institutions (Article 21 of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes), there has been a question about whether doctors are held responsible despite that the accidents such as the deaths of mothers and newborn babies occurred irresistibly without doctors' fault. However, recently, the Constitutional Court ruled that 'the range of founders of health and medical institutions' and 'share ratios of finances for compensation' in Article 46 (3) of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes' related to the imposition of the share of costs are institutional (Constitutional Court ruling dated April 26, 2018, 2015Heonga13, hereinafter referred to as 'the ruling in the case'). Although the ruling in the case was made based on only the principle of statutory reservation and the principle of ban on comprehensive authorization, this paper added a practical judgment. This paper proved that the share of costs in this case has the nature of burden charges in pursuit of study and does not infringe on the property rights of the founders of health medical institutions even in light of the principle of proportionality because there is a legitimate reason for imposing the burden charge. The imposition of the share of costs in the system for compensation for medical accidents occurred irresistibly is against the principle of liability with fault in part. However, the medical accident compensation projects are rational a national policy for the victims of medical accidents and the medical world clearly gains some benefits from the effect to terminate medical disputes. The expansion of finances for compensation through the payments of the share of costs will reduce the suffering and misunderstanding of victims of medical accidents occurred in the process of childbirth and will be very helpful to the construction of stable treatment environments of medical workers by quickly establishing the medical accident compensation projects as such.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.51-64
• /
• 2013

정부 주도의 대규모 개발사업은 개발과 환경보전이라는 가치관의 차이, 개발로 인한 공익과 환경 파괴로 인한 환경이익 침해와 같은 공익 간의 상충, 사업으로 예상되는 국익과 개인의 재산권 침해 등과 같은 문제를 초래하는 경우가 많았다. 그럼에도 불구하고 정부는 개발정책과 계획을 수립하고 개발사업을 집행하는 과정에서 발생되는 자연훼손이나 환경파괴, 경제적 타당성, 사회적 문제 등을 객관적이고 과학적으로 조사하거나 제대로 검증하지 않아 갈등이 빈번하게 발생하였다. 이러한 갈등을 해결하기 위한 기존의 연구는 대개 갈등의 원인을 이해관계, 가치관, 사실관계, 제도 측면에서 규명하고 해결방안으로 주로 주민참여와 거버넌스, 전략환경평가, 사회영향평가 등을 제시하였다. 본 연구에서는 한국에서 1980년대 중반이후 주요 개발갈등사례를 개발사업 종류, 갈등당사자, 갈등 쟁점, 갈등 원인, 선거공약 여부, 소송 여부에 따라 정리한 후, 갈등 예방과 해소를 위한 법과 제도를 고찰하였다. 그리고 선거공약 또는 개발정책 및 계획안 구상단계, 개발정책 및 개발계획 수립 단계, 개발사업 시행단계, 갈등 분쟁 발생단계 등으로 구분하여 갈등예방 및 해소방안을 제시하였다. 선거공약 단계에서는 공직선거법상 선거공약서 규정에 국가재정법상 예비타당성분석을 도입하고, 개발정책 및 개발계획 수립단계에서는 전략환경평가와 갈등영향평가의 연계, 전략환경평가과정에 사회영향평가 및 주민참여의 강화, 환경계획과 개발계획의 연계 등을 제시하였다. 개발사업 시행 단계에서는 환경영향평가 과정에서의 주민참여를 강화하고, 개발사업 시행단계에서 갈등이 발생하는 경우 거버넌스 구축과 환경분쟁조정법, 공공기관의 갈등예방과 해결에 관한 규정 등을 근거로 하는 갈등해소방안을 제시하였다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.125-151
• /
• 2018

Rapid industrial growth based on massive fossil fuel energy consumption has caused serious damages on natural environment and every aspects of human life. As demands for clean and pleasant living circumstance increases, conflicts and disputes around environmental problems have also been widespread. Given the 'environmental rights' is a relatively new legal concept, however, resolving environmental disputes through the traditional legal principles and litigation procedures could be restrictive and, in some sense. inefficient as well as expensive. With efforts to develop new legal principles on environmental disputes, the environmental dispute adjustment system has been introduced as an alternative dispute resolution to the traditional legal dispute procedures. The Korean Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission introduced as the environmental dispute adjustment system has been well established for the past twenty-seven years, given the steadily increasing numbers of applications to the Commission over environmental disputes. However, as most cases are still small in money terms and mainly subject to adjudication, the effectiveness and practical contribution of the Commission in the resolution of environmental disputes have in fact been limited. For the enhancement of the status and roles of the Commission as the prior instrument of the alternative dispute resolution(ADR) in environmental disputes, several suggestions could be considered as follows: First, mediation needs to be more activated than adjudication in order to meet the primary purpose of ADR that resolves environmental disputes according to free will of concerned parties. Second, the scope of mediation could be expanded to the areas including potential environmental damages. Third, the roles and responsibilities of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commissions at both central and local levels need to be evenly distributed. Fourth, the mechanism and procedures of environmental dispute resolution should be standardized. Fifth, the status of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission could be elevated in rank by shifting its current affiliation from the Ministry of Environment to the Office of Prime Minister. Sixth, the organizational structure and human resources of the Commission need to be reinforced. Seventh, the current situation that tends to give priority to litigation procedures when an environment dispute is simultaneously pending in litigation and mediation should be eased and properly adjusted. Eighth, the adoption of mandatory mediation in advance to litigation needs to be discussed. Ninth, the legal authority of the Commission's decisions should be further guaranteed. If above suggestions are thoroughly reviewed and properly adopted, the roles, authority and power of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission would be increased in the era when environmental conflicts get widespread, requiring an effective alternative environmental dispute resolution mechanism.