• 대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.89-93
• /
• 2007

조영제를 사용한 방사선과 검사의 조영제 부작용에 대한 위험성은 잘 알려져 있으며, 조영제의 부작용을 줄이기 위한 연구도 지속적으로 진행되어 왔다. 또한 조영제 부작용에 대한 사전검사를 하더라도 조영제에 의한 치명적 부작용을 예측하기 어렵다. 이러한 조영제 부작용에 대한 법적책임에 대하여 최근에는 의료기관개설자의 책임이 중요시되고 있다. 의료기관은 환자의 건강을 목적으로 하는 조직체이다. 그리고 조직체는 그 구성원에 의한 과실에 책임이 있다. 그러므로 의료기관개설자는 의료서비스에 대해서 기대가능한 모든 노력을 하여야 하며, 불충분 또는 불완전한 조직편성 및 진료조치가 이루어지지 않게 하여야 할 조직의무를 부담한다. 이러한 점에서 의료기관은 방사선조영검사시에 조영제를 주입하는 단계로부터 검사의 완료에 이르기까지 전과정에 충분하고도 완전한 조직편성과 적정한 진료 확보를 위한 제반조치를 취할 책임이 있다. 따라서 환자의 안전과 진료의 적정을 위하여 의료기관이 조직적으로 필요한 조치를 시행하지 않거나 불충분한 경우에는 불법행위법상 의료기관 독자적인 조직책임을 지게 되며, 의료기관의 조직의무위반은 의료기관 자신의 책임이므로 내부관계에서 의료기관종사자 개인에게 구상권을 행사할 수 없다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2017

우리나라에서는 1979년 대법원이 처음 설명의무 위반으로 인한 손해배상을 인정하였고, 그 후 판례를 통해서 설명의무의 구체적 내용이 형성 발전되어 오고 있다. 의사의 설명의무는 헌법 제10조와 진료계약상의 의무에 근거하고 있고, 보건의료기본법 제12조 및 개별 법률에서도 설명의무에 관한 내용을 규정하고 있다. 그런데, 2016. 12. 20. 개정된 의료법 제24조의2에 설명의무에 관한 규정이 신설되었고, 개정 의료법은 2017. 6. 21.부터 시행될 예정이다. 개정 의료법에 따르면, 설명의무의 대상이 되는 의료행위는 '사람의 생명 또는 신체에 중대한 위해를 발생하게 할 우려가 있는 수술, 수혈, 전신마취'이다. 이러한 의료행위를 할 때에는 반드시 사전에 법정사항이 기재된 서면으로 설명을 하고 동의를 받아야 한다. 만약, 이를 위반하면 300만원 이하의 과태료 처분을 받게 된다. 개정 의료법의 내용과 학설 및 판례를 통해서 인정되어 온 설명의무에 관한 기존 법리를 비교 검토해 보면, 양자 간에 상당한 차이가 있음을 확인할 수 있다. 그에 따라 개정의료법의 시행 이후에도, 기존 설명의무에 관한 법리는 크게 영향을 받지 않을 것으로 보인다. 그러나, 동일한 사안에서 설명의무 위반 여부에 관한 판단이 민사상 손해배상사건과 의료법 위반으로 인한 과태료처분사건에서 서로 달라지는 것은 법적 안정성이나 법질서 전체 통일의 관점에서 바람직하지 않다. 개정 의료법상의 설명의무에 관한 내용을 기존 법리에 맞게 수정하거나 독일의 경우와 같이 진료계약의 내용에 포함시켜 민법에서 규율하는 것이 바람직하다고 생각한다.

• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제37권6호
• /
• pp.617-625
• /
• 2013

영국 해사법상 S&P 브로커"로 널리 알려진 선박매매 브로커는 선박매매를 원하는 의뢰인인 본인을 대신하여 협상을 행사하는 독립적 계약자이다. 또한 S&P 브로커는 선박매매시 본인을 대리하는 대리인으로 그 법적지위를 갖는다. S&P 브로커들은 로이드 선급, 미국 선급 및 한국 선급 등에서 선박의 중요한 명세 자료와 정보들을 수집하여 선박매매를 원하는 매도인과 매수인에게 상호 이익이 되도록 조력한다. S&P 브로커의 책임은 선박매매계약서의 합의 내용에 반하지 않고 선량한 관리자로서 주의의무를 다하며, 의뢰인인 본인의 요청에 전문적으로 업무수행 함을 의미한다. 그러나 선박매매계약에 의하여 당사자와의 관계 범위, 주된 조건, 계약 위반 및 면책내용에 있어서 분쟁이 발생할 경우, S&P 브로커에게도 책임문제가 발생한다. 이 S&P 브로커의 책임은 직접계약당사자의 원칙에 의하거나 제3자의 권리에 관한 계약법에 근거한다. 그러므로 S&P 브로커가 의무를 불이행한 경우 또는 계약 내용에 반하거나 과실에 기인하여 불법행위가 야기된 경우, 분쟁과 소송이 발생하게 된다. 이에 이 논문에서는 S&P 브로커의 특징 중 대리인으로서의 법적 책임, 수수료 문제, 이익의 충돌과 비밀 수수료, 등에 대하여 영국 해사법과 영국 판례를 중심으로 검토하여 논함을 이 연구의 목적으로 삼고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.41-65
• /
• 2010

It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws. It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.29-51
• /
• 2016

This paper reviews the Supreme Court decision of the United Kingdom in Jivraj v. Hashwani (2011) concerning the employment issue of arbitrators, falling within the exception of genuine occupational requirement under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, and nationality of arbitrators. In 2011, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its judgment in Jivraj v. Hashwani, unanimously overturning decision of the English Court of Appeal. The facts of this case and the decision of the Court of Appeal have been widely discussed. The decision of the Supreme Court has been met with approval within the international arbitration community in London, having restored the legal position to that prior to the Court of Appeal's ruling. Thus, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal's finding that arbitrators are the employees of the arbitrating parties. Arbitrators were held to be genuinely self-employed, and therefore outside the scope of the Regulations or Equality Act(2010). As such, the anti-discrimination provisions are not applicable to the selection, engagement or appointment of arbitrators. Most importantly, the Supreme Court's finding that arbitrators are not employees removes the possibility of challenges to arbitration agreements on the grounds that they are in breach of the Equality Act. As a practical matter, parties no longer need to consider carving out nationality provisions when drafting arbitration agreements.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제43권
• /
• pp.239-273
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice of Italian merchants were later introduced into England through Lombard merchants. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and Continental marine insurance law have common root. Nevertheless, some significant divergences between English and Continental marine insurance systems occurred since the late 17th century, mainly due to different approaches adopted by English courts. The rule of warranty in English marine insurance was established in the second part of the 18th century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of marine insurance and developed different approaches, especially in the field of warranty in marine insurance law. Since the age of Lord Mansfield, English marine insurance law has developed a unique rule on warranty. Bearing in mind the realities of the 18th century, it could easily be understood why Lord Mansfield afforded such a strict legal character to marine warranties. At that time, the 'promise' given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. Of course, it is still important that the assured keep his promises to the insurer under the insurance contract, which is based upon utmost good faith. Nevertheless, the remedy of automatic discharge from liability, regardless of existence of a casual link between the breach and loss seems harsh in the realities of the 21st century. After examining the warranty regime adopted by the German and Norwegian hull clauses, it is fair to say that they provide a more equitable approaches for the assured than does English law. Therefore, this article suggests that English warranty regime needs overall reform and it is time to reform.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.291-308
• /
• 2009

The implied obligation under the contract of affreightment not to carry dangerous goods without prior notice to the carrier applies to the contractual relationship between the charterer and the owner under charterparties. The charterers will be in breach of an implied undertaking under the common law if they load dangerous cargoes without making notice of dangerous nature of them to the owner. It is indicated to be necessary to change the term "shipper" to "charterer", with relation to such implied obligation, where the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules are incorporated into the charter, however, it is not so apparent where an actual shipper is involved. So long as an actual shipper could be identified, the shipper rather than the charterer shall be responsible for damages arising from the dangerous nature of the cargo itself. In this case, the actual shipper is interpreted to have an implied contractual relationship with the carrier just by the act of delivering the cargo to the carrier for loading. If the vessel were damaged by shipment of the dangerous cargo under charterparty, the carrier can claim against such damages based on the contractual obligations under charterparties: "implied and expressed duty not to ship dangerous cargo without notice to the carrier"; "Art.IV.6 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules"; "Indemnity Clause" and "Redelivery Clause". The carrier has the conventional right under the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules to land, destroy or render the goods innocuous where the dangerous cargo threatens the means of transport or other interests on board. When the carrier has not consented to make the shipment, the carrier's disposal right could be exercised without limitation. However, where the carrier has consented to make the shipment of the dangerous goods with the knowledge concerned, the right of disposal of such goods should be exercised with limitation.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권3호
• /
• pp.199-218
• /
• 2018

국제물품매매 거래에서 불가항력은 당사자의 통제를 벗어나는 상황으로 인해 계약의 불이행이 발생하는 경우 책임소재와 분쟁해결을 위한 계약서의 명시조항으로 널리 사용되고 있다. 본 연구는 FTA 특혜관세 적용과정에서 발생할 수 있는 불가항력(예외적인 경우)에 대한 판단기준과 이와 관련된 한·ASEAN FTA와 한·EU FTA 검증과정에서 제기된 사례를 살펴보았으며, 이를 통해 동 FTA를 활용하여 특혜관세 혜택을 향유하고자 하는 무역기업에 다음과 같은 시사점을 제시하고자 한다. 먼저 한·ASEAN FTA와 한·EU FTA에서 규정하고 있는 특혜관세 배제조항의 확인과 관세당국의 예외적인 경우에 대한 판단기준을 파악하여야 한다. 그리고 원산지증명서의 유효기간에 대한 유예기준 확인과 수출국 관세당국의 검증결과 회신기준을 확인하여야 한다. 마지막으로 관세당국의 검증결과 회신 미요청 행위에 대한 신의성실의 원칙 위배여부를 확인하여야 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• pp.213-239
• /
• 2011

This article examines two important issues of the demand for payment by the beneficiary and the payment by the guarantor to the beneficiary under the revised Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantee (URDG) published by ICC, which are called URDG 758 and effected on July 1, 2010. Here, after first briefly defining the concept and nature of the demand for payment, this article discusses various issues surrounding the demand: By whom, where and how the demand has to be made; which documents are required in demanding the payment; how much amount can be demanded and paid; when and where the payment has to be made and which currency has to be used for the payment. The demand for payment has to be made by the beneficiary to the guarantor on or before expiry of the guarantee at the place of issuance of the guarantee unless any other place is specified in the guarantee. The demand has to be made in paper form unless the guarantee requires an electronic form. Unless otherwise expressly stipulated in the guarantee, the demand must be supported by a statement by the beneficiary indicating the applicant is in breach of the underlying contract. Also the demand must identify the guarantee under which it is made, and the time for examination by the guarantor starts on the date of identification. The demand cannot be for more than the amount available under the guarantee. When the demand is complying the guarantor must pay the amount demanded. The payment has to be made at the branch or office of the guarantor that issued the guarantee unless any other place is indicated in the guarantee. The payment has to be made in the currency specified in the guarantee, unless the guarantor is unable to make payment in that currency due to an impediment beyond its control or any illegality under the law of the place for payment. In case of "extend or pay" or "pay or extend" demands, the demand is deemed to be withdrawn if the extension is granted. But if not, the demand has to be paid without any further demand by the beneficiary.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제47권
• /
• pp.129-156
• /
• 2010

Since the 1970s, international construction employers have commonly requested first demand guarantees upon their contractors as a form of security for due performance of their works. Contractors prefer the greater protection offered by more traditional forms of security requiring presentation of an arbitral award or other evidence of the caller's entitlement to compensation. Many contractors nonetheless feel that they have no alternative but to provide these unconditional guarantees in order to compete. However, these unconditional first demand guarantees are controversial and have given rise to numerous disputes both in arbitration and litigation. Disputes arising from first demand guarantees can be broken down into a) applications to prevent a perceived fraudulent or otherwise unfair or improper calling of a guarantee, b) claims arising from such abusive calls and c) claims relating to the consequences of such calls even if the call itself may not be abusive as such. The contractors should carefully assess the risk of an abusive call being made bearing in mind the difficulties he may face in seeking to prevent such a call. He should also bear in mind the difficulties, delays and cost he is likely to encounter in seeking to recover any monies wrongfully called. One option would be to provide that the call can only be made once and to the extent that the employer's damages have been assessed or even incurred or even for the default to have been established by an arbitral tribunal or court. Another option would be to provide that any call be accompanied by a decision of a competent and impartial third party stating that the contractor is in breach. For example, such a requirement could be incorporated into a construction contract based on the FIDIC Conditions by submitting this decision to a Dispute Adjudication Board. Another option would be to provide for the "ICC Counter-Guarantee Scheme". In sum, there would appear to be room for compromise between the employer and the contractor in respect of first demand guarantees by conditioning the entitlement to call such guarantees to the determination of a competent and impartial third party.