• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2006

In recent years, as well as the other countries, medical dispute cases increase continuously in China. one of the reason that medical cases increase rapidly like this is after reformation and opening people's sense of independence, law and right come to be high, but a theoretical study about medical malpractice liability is insufficient and there is deficiency at legislation from 1986 civil law general rule is carried out in Chinese. but it is difficulty to deal with those more and more complicated medical dispute only according to the law above. so in 2001 The Chinese Supreme Court established the judicial construction about civil litigation evidence which regulated the shift of the burden of proof of medical malpractice and the relation of cause and effect from the plaintiffs to the defendants. in 2002 the State Council made out Incident of Malpractice Processing Rule. but many scholar pointed out the problem in it. on the other side, according to Chinese Contract Law parties could choose contractual or tort liability to prosecute. but because of the judicial construction above majority of people asked tort liability. of course there are some cases asking contractual liability. then this paper aim at analysis of the Chinese medical malpractice liability, especially of the problems about the subject of responsibility, burden of proof and scope of responsibility.

• 한국건축시공학회지
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.195-202
• /
• 2018

The defects that are bound to arise in most construction projects cause disputes among the contracting parties regarding the defect warranty liability (DWL)guaranteed by the retention of the contractor's performance security at the end of the performance period of the contract. Most current projects involve a multiple-tier contractual relationship, causing the liability for some defects to overlap. In addition, many construction projects are made up of multiple detailed work types which an expert hired by the owner inspects the part completed by the contractor and pays an interim payment. However, after the completion of work, the contractor will still hold the defect warranty liability. In a scenario in which the work is delayed due to reasons for which the owner is responsible, the defect warranty liability period is also increased, imposing an additional burden on the contractor. In this study, basic research was carried out with the goal of reducing problems related to defect warranty liability Problems related to defect warranty liability cases and the nature of the defect warranty liability period were investigated. Possible solutions to the problems caused by the DWL that were suggested include the separation of the negligence liability period and the strict liability period, as well as the introduction of a retention money system.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제34권
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2007

Product liability law lies at the center of the modem world. This law concerns liability for damages arising from the commercial sale of a product that causes personal injury or property damage because it was defective or falsely represented. One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes a defective product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect. In short, product defectiveness is the heart of products liability law. Regardless of the underlying cause of action, the plaintiff in nearly every products liability case must prove that the defendant's product contained an unnecessary hazard that caused the harm. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the meaning of the product defectiveness to products liability claims in China. In China, Product to include most movable personal property, but to exclude services. And a product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings.

• 한국자동차공학회논문집
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.148-155
• /
• 2014

Most truck fires breaking out on the expressway are directly damaged by fire destruction of truck and freight and many of them cause indirect damage such as serious traffic holdups. This study analyzed the fire causes and their liability of the 25-ton truck fire breaking out during expressway driving. This truck fire was caused by manufacturing defect of return spring of a braking system. The fire liability rested with a maker(manufacturer) rather than a truck owner or a driver and the maker also bore fire liability based on the Product Liability Law.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제66권
• /
• pp.119-148
• /
• 2015

Generally, the liability for breach is defined as the civil liability that arises from the conduct of violation of a contract. There are two notable principles governing liability for breach that have fundamental impacts on the unified Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter Chinese Contract Law) in the remedies. In China, during the drafting of the Contract Law, there was a great debate as to whether damages for breach of contract ought to follow the fault principle or to follow the strict liability principle. Ultimately the Chinese Contract Law follows the model of the CISG on this point, namely, it follows the strict liability principle (article 107) with an exemption cause of force majeure. Under Chinese Contract Law, it is interpreted as strict liability in principle. Strict Liability is a notion introduced into Chinese Contract Law from the Anglo-Saxon Law. The strict liability or no fault doctrine, on the contrary, allows a party to claim damages if the other party fails to fulfill his contractual obligations regardless of the fault of the failing party. Pursuant to the strict liability doctrine, if the performance of a contract is due, any non-performance will constitute a breach and the fault on the party in breach is irrelevant. This paper reviews problems of legal character or legal ground of contractual liability in Chinese contract law. Specifically, focusing on the interpretation of Chinese contract law sections and analysis of three cases related contractual liability in freight agency, the paper proposes some implications of structural features of Chinese contract law and international commercial transactions.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.91-116
• /
• 2010

As Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a new and rare illness, medical cause for it has not yet been clearly found out. Nevertheless, the patients continue to file lawsuits for damage compensation against wrongdoers or their insurers, claiming that the cause of the illness is certain actions of the wrongdoers. Moreover, the claim amount reaches to hundreds of millions of won through billions of won unlike other illnesses. Therefore, CRPS has become an important legal issue in the damage compensation lawsuit. Even though the wound is slight, the development and result may be serious in the case of CRPS. As a result, a sharp conflict arises even regarding medical diagnosis of CRPS in the lawsuit. And, even if the medical diagnosis of CRPS is admitted, severe debates occurs with regard to many issues, which include the causation between accident and CRPS in connection with establishment of damage compensation liability and scope of liability like anamnesis, determination standard of aftereffect disability, and scope of admitted aftereffect medical expense in connection with scope of damage compensation. In this study, I will review fundamental medical research on CRPS up to now and discuss principal legal issues in the damage compensation lawsuit focusing on lower court rulings.

• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제34권3호
• /
• pp.251-255
• /
• 2010

해양사고는 민사법상의 손해배상, 형법상의 책임의 귀속 및 행정상의 제재와 같은 여러 가지 법적 책임 문제를 야기한다. 어떠한 행위에 의하여 결과가 발생하였다고 하여 바로 책임귀속이 되는 것은 아니다. 이러한 책임의 전제로서 해양사고를 야기한 행위와 그 결과 발생사이에 인과관계가 문제된다. 해양사고에 있어서 그 원인 규명은 해양이라는 사고 발생 장소, 증거확보의 어려움, 사고 발생시와 조사 시점과의 시간차 등으로 어려움이 많다. 그러나 정확한 원인 규명은 유사 사고 방지와 책임 소재를 가리는데 매우 중요한 요소이다. 인과관계를 논리학적으로 보면 무한히 확산 가능한 개념이지만 책임귀속에 있어서는 이를 제한할 필요성이 있다. 따라서 이 논문에서는 인과관계 이론을 바탕으로 해양사고에서의 인과관계를 검토하여 책임귀속의 합리적인 판단 기준을 논증한 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.92-113
• /
• 2000

Products liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts (at the top of the chain), an assembling manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retail store owner (at the bottom of the chain). Products containing inherent defects that cause harm to a consumer of the product, or someone to whom the product was loaned, given, etc., are the subjects of products liability suits. The goal of products liability system should be to maximize consumer welfare by efficiently providing just compensation for injuries incurred and deterring future injuries without unreasonably impeding the supply of the goods and services to consumers. Some advanced countries, apart from relying on products liability systems, also apply other policies and legislation directly aimed at the safety of the consumer. The application of general safety policies as well as products liability rules is not costless. An efficient system will not eliminate risk from society. An efficient system ... that maximises consumer welfare ... maximises the benefits while minimising the costs. Products liability claims can be based on negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty of fitness depending on the jurisdiction where the claim is based. In view of international business and law circumstances, it should be stressed that international enterprises in Korea should consider how to cope with the situation of international transaction. International enterprises should have a correct perception about products liability which is to contribute the stabilization and improvement of the people's life and the sound develpement of the national economy. Products liability system creates incentives that influence behaviour and performance in ways that are desirable, such as more diligent monitoring to prevent defective products from reaching the market-place. At the same time, any liability system will impose burdens that are undesirable, such as greater costs imposed on business and consumers and reduced avaiability of consumer goods. The concern for society is to balance. The ideal situation is where the cost imposed on producers of goods and services pushes them to a desirable level of care but not so far that producers reach undesirable level of caution that may deprive consumers unnecessarily of the benefits from new and innovative products.

• 환경정책연구
• /
• 제8권4호
• /
• pp.125-147
• /
• 2009

1990년에 제정되어 우리나라 환경법의 체계상 매우 중요한 위치를 차지하고 있는 환경정책기본법에는 그 제31조에 사업자등의 무과실책임을 규정하고 있는데, 이는 절대적 책임을 규정한 것으로서 비교법적으로 그 유례가 없을 정도로 강력한 효력을 지닌 규정이다. 여기에서는 환경정책기본법 제31조의 문제점을 알아보고 그 바람직한 개정방안을 우리나라 법체계와 동일한 대륙법계에 속하면서 1990년에 환경책임법을 제정하여 시행하면서 비교법적으로 좋은 시사점을 제시해주고 있는 독일환경책임법에 비추어 모색해 본다. 첫째, 환경정책기본법 제31조가 일반조항의 형태로서 구성요건적 내용을 포괄적으로 규정하고 있어서 구성요건의 구체적인 기준에 대한 해석을 둘러싸고 논란이 예상되므로 '사업자등'에서의 '사업자등'에 대한 개념규정이 필요하다. 둘째, 고의 과실의 문제와 관련하여 우리 환경정책기본법은 제31조 제1항에서 "사업장 등에서 발생하는 환경오염 또는 환경훼손으로 인하여 피해가 발생한 때에는 당해 사업자는 그 피해를 배상하여야 한다."고 규정하고, 동법 제3조에서 '환경오염'이라 함은 "사업활동 기타 사람의 활동에 따라 발생되는 대기오염, 수질오염, 토양오염, 방사능오염, 소음 진동, 악취, 일조방해 등으로서 사람의 건강이나 환경에 피해를 주는 상태를 말한다."고 규정하고 있는데 이는 시설책임보다는 시설 및 행위책임으로 보인다. 우리 환경정책기본법과 같이 무과실의 위험책임을 근간으로 하는 독일환경책임법이 위험책임에 기초하면서도 행위책임이 아니라 시설책임에 따름으로써 그 적용범위를 제한하고 있는 점과, 시설책임에 의하면서도 가능한 한 추상성을 배제하기 위하여 시설의 종류를 별표 I에서 나열하는 열거주의를 채택함으로써 무과실책임의 적용 주체를 가능한 한 명확하게 하고 있는 점을 타산지석으로 삼을 필요가 있다. 셋째, 책임제한의 구체적 기준을 위하여 독일환경책임법 제5조와 같은 물적 손해배상 책임의 배제규정을 참조하여 물적 손해배상책임의 제한 규정을 둘 필요가 있다. 넷째, 무과실의 위험책임에 따르더라도 가해행위와 손해 사이의 인과관계가 입증되어야 하는데 전문지식이 결여된 피해자가 입증책임을 부담해야 한다는 원칙은 입증의 어려움을 더하고 있다. 따라서 피해자를 입증책임의 곤란으로부터 구제하기 위하여 독일환경책임법상의 '인과관계의 추정'규정을 벤치마킹하여 피해자를 가해자(시설보유자)보다 유리한 지위에 서게 할 필요가 있다. 다섯째, 환경손해의 원인을 밝혀내기 위해서 피해자의 시설보유자(가해자)에 대한 정보청구권, 시설보유자의 다른 시설보유자 및 피해자 또는 주무관청에 대한 정보청구권 등을 두는 것이 필요하며, 더 나아가 환경정보법의 제정이 필요하다고 할 것이다. 여섯째, 명문으로 천재지변, 전쟁, 제3자의 행위 등에 의한 면책조항을 규정하여 이러한 불가항력적 사유에 터잡은 손해에 대하여는 배상의무가 발생하지 않도록 하여야 할 것이다. 일곱째, 환경오염에 대한 잠재적 가해자인 시설보유자의 급부능력을 담보하기 위하여 환경오염에 의한 손해의 배상의무(전보준비, Deckungsvorsorge)를 이행하기 위한 조치를 강구하는 규정이 필요하다. 여덟째, 이상의 논의들을 고려하고 환경정책기본법 제31조 제1항의 구체적 효력의 인정 여부를 둘러싼 논란을 잠재우고, 궁극적으로 피해자의 권리보호에 충실하기 위해 환경책임체계를 총괄하는 별도의 법인 가칭 '환경책임법'을 제정할 필요가 있다. 다수의 법률의 양산을 지양한다는 관점에서 기존의 환경정책기본법에 책임 조항과 관련한 별도의 장을 마련하는 것을 차선의 대안으로 생각해 볼 수 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.43-59
• /
• 2018

This study aims to review various efforts required by medical institutions to prevent medical accidents in advance and to suggest the necessity of introducing liability insurance for medical accidents based on cases abroad and compulsory professional indemnity insurance at home. Over the past five years between 2013 and 2017, the number of inquiries regarding medical accidents and medical disputes has increased by 11.1 percent from 36,099 to 54,929, and the number of mediation and arbitration for medical disputes has increased by 14.3 percent from 1,304 to 2,225. Since some medical accidents even cause social problems, a compulsory insurance system for the liability of medical institutions for damages need to be introduced to promptly compensate the victims of medical accidents and to ensure compensation by medical personnel. In Korea, a system is in place to provide compensation for a client who suffers an accidental damage after receiving professional services, regardless of whether or not the professional service provider can provide compensation. In major foreign countries, a medical liability system is in place that is applied either by the principle of liability with fault, or the principle of liability without fault. In this study, the cases of compulsory insurance and semi-compulsory insurance in the US and Japan to which the principle of liability with fault is applied, as well as the case of New Zealand to which the principle of liability without fault is applied, were examined. It is necessary to urgently introduce the compulsory insurance system for the liability of compensation to prevent medical disputes and to compensate for the life and physical damages of the victims of medical accidents in domestic medical institutions. Doing so is expected to ensure fair compensation for the victims of medical malpractice and compensation by medical personnel, thereby improving medical practice.