• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.33-67
• /
• 2020

The hospitals that are owned by non-medical personnel result when non-medical personnel with resources conspire with newly graduated medical doctors who cannot afford the enormous amount of capital required at the beginning of the establishment of a medical institution. Such hospitals, though they may have met the external requirements as medical institutions, disrupt the medical market as it should be centered by medical personnels, In addition, such hospitals are causing a huge social problem as it is illegally receiving and reducing various benefits such as medical care benefits and subsidies from the government, resulting in a significant financial leak in the national health insurance. The illegality of the opening of a non-medical personnel hospital is so high that it nullifies the contractual arrangement for the establishment, imposes criminal penalties on all persons involved in the establishment under the Korean Medical Law, and imposes administrative sanctions on medical personnel. In case the hospital was aware of the illegality of its opening, but had applied to receive medical care benefits from the National Health Insurance Act and the Medical Care Act, such actions will result in the return of the benefits under the National Health Insurance Act and the Medical Care Assistance Act, subject to the penalty for the crime of fraud, and aggravated punishment for specific economic crimes based on the amount of gain, as well as civil liability for torts. In this study, we will examine the current status of the regulations on the non-medical personnel hospital and present the basis for future legislative directions by looking at the legal regulations and the attitude of the precedents.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.419-454
• /
• 2017

Faced with the internationalization of capital markets, Korea needs to protect its investors and markets by applying the relevant laws extraterritorially. The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act ("Capital Markets Act") explicitly introduced a new provision recognizing the extraterritoriality of the Act. While Article 2 of the Capital Markets Act comprehensively provides for prescriptive extraterritorial jurisdiction, the enactment of extraterritoriality alone does not guarantee that the Act will apply to cross-border transactions effectively. The effective extraterritorial application of an act is inseparable from the adjudicative and enforcement jurisdiction of the act. Specifically, active investigations and detections by the public regulators might be the first step for enforcing the Capital Markets Act. Unlike domestic regulations, however, multinational enforcement actions outside a regulator's home country becomes more problematic because of various obstacles. This Article examines difficulties which domestic regulators may confront in enforcing the Capital Markets Act extraterritorially and makes several recommendations for more effective multinational enforcement as follows. First, the Korean regulators should continue to foster cooperation through the IOSCO and provide international markets with the information and tools necessary for successful regulation of cross-border transactions. Second, the principle of dual criminality should be applied in a modified form for the effective mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. Third, there should be a legal device for the domestic regulator to freeze foreign wrongdoer's assets located outside Korea to repatriate those assets for distribution to defrauded investors in Korea.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.137-177
• /
• 2007

The medical expenses review system in Korea has developed under fee-for-service system with its own unique structure. The importance of reviewing medical expenses has been emphasized, as the size of medical expenditures moving through the health insurance legal context and its weight in the national economy have increased very rapidly. It is, however, analyzed that the feuds and arguments continue among the stakeholders for the lack of laws supporting the medical expenses review system. The medical expenses review is a series of administrative procedures, deciding whether claims from medical care institutions to the insurer are legal and valid or not. It mainly controls the increase of unnecessarily excessive health insurance claim and prevents fraudulent claim and abuse and checks the less use or unsuitable use of medical resources. It also works a function guarantees medical benefits for the appropriate treatment according to the object of health insurance system as a social insurance scheme. The dispute on legal base of the medical expenses review is about the source of law in the medical expenses review. There are the Health Insurance Act and administrative laws as jus scriptum and the guidelines of review as administrative orders. The medical expenses review should reflect various factors, such as the development of medical healthcare technologies, the health expenditures distribution, the financial situation of the health insurance, and the evaluation on the level of appropriate benefits. It is also likely to adapt to the traits of characters of medicine, and trends and transition, Besides it should judge the legality and the validity of medical benefits expenditures by synthesizing these all factors. And the evaluation system of appropriateness of medical benefits was administrative procedure which was consecutive with reviewing the medical expenses system and it was intended to make up for the result of reviewing the medical expenses in more comprehensive levels.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.10 no.6
• /
• pp.107-116
• /
• 2009

As the Fundamentals of Construction Business Act was revised in December 2004 and its implementing ordinances and enforcement regulations were adjusted in June 2005, the screening system of low price subcontracting has been an obligation to the public owners, having brought about arguments for and against since it enacted in 1983. The statutes for low price subcontracting have been reinforced from this year; for example, it underlines to submit to a project and builds an information network of subcontracting works. The system's original intention was that prevents shoddy and fraudulent constructions caused by low price subcontracting and precludes disturbances of fair trade by screening that whether it satisfies the conditions or not in advance. But, the criterion for the existing low price subcontracting has several issues having held up a true mirror to the real situation. It is arguable to discharge an important task with the primary purpose. This dissertation have researched the problem with a deposit of subcontract and the low price subcontracting basic rate are being used by the criteria for deciding whether it is a low price subcontracting or not, so showing the plan of reformation based on the findings, it wishes to contribute toward making the most of the system's essential intent.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.105-121
• /
• 2006

This study is related with the judgements of our country's supremcourt against the transaction of Letter of Credit which is beneficiary's fraudulent trade deal. In this case I think to analyse the judgements and to present the basic grounds on which the judgements were established. In Letter of Credit transaction, there are the major parties, such as, beneficiary, issuing bank, or confirming bank and the other parties such as applicant, negotiating bank, advising bank and paying bank. Therefore, in this cases, the beneficiary, the French Weapons' Supplier who did not shipped the commodities, created the false Bill of Lading, let his dealing bank make payment against the documents presented by him and received the proceeds from the negotiating bank or collecting bank, thereafter was bankrupted and escaped. For the first time, even though the issuing bank conceived that the presented documents were inconsistent with the terms of L/C. it did not received the payment approval from the applicant against all the discrepancies, made the negotiating bank pay the proceeds to exporter and thereafter, delivered the documents to the applicant long after the time of the issuing bank's examination of documents. The applicant who received the documents from the issuing bank, instantly did not examine the documents and inform to the issuing bank whether he accepted the documents or not. Long time after, applicant tried to clear the goods through custom when he knew the bill of ladings were false and founded out the documents had the other discrepancies which he did not approved. As the results, the applicant, Korea Army Transportation Command claimed, that the issuing bank must refund his paid amount because issuing bank examined the documents unreasonably according to u.c.p 500 Act 13th, 14th. In spite of the applicant's claim, the issuing bank argued that it paid the proceeds of L/C reasonably after receiving the applicant's approval of an discrepancy of document, the delayed shipment, but for concerning the other discrepancies, the trivial ones, the applicant did not examined the document and noticed the discrepancies in reasonable time. Therefore the applicant sued the issuing bank for refunding it's paid proceeds of L/C. Originally, this cases were risen between Korea Exchange Bank and Korea Army Transportation Command. As result of analysing the case, the contents of the case case have had same procedure actually, but the lower courts, the district and high courts all judged the issuing bank was reasonable and did not make an error. As analysing these supreme court's judgements, the problem is that whether there are the applicant's liability of examining the documents and informing its discrepancies to the issuing bank or not, and if the applicant broke such a liabilities, it lost the right of claiming the repayment from issuing bank. Finally to say, such applicant's liabilities only must be existed in case the documents arrived to the issuing bank was delivered to the applicant within the time of the documents examination according to u.c.p 500 Act 14, d. i. But if any the documents were delivered to applicant after time of the documents examination, the applicant had not such liabilities because eventhough after those time the applicant would have informed to the issuing bank the discrepancies of documents, the issuing bank couldn't receive repayment of its paid proceeds of document from the negotiating bank. In the result after time of issuing bank's examination of documents, it is considered that there's no actual benefit to ask the applicant practice it's liability. Therefore finally to say. I concluded that the Suprem Court's judgement was much more reasonable. In the following, the judgements of the supreme court would be analysed more concretely, the basic reasons of the results be explained and the way of protecting such L/C transaction would be presented.