• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.9-56
• /
• 2008

The medical practice does not always get a satisfatory result since the disease progress of patients are depended on patients' physical constitution and the doctors cannot control the outcomes about patients' physiological and biological reaction after the treatment. Moreover, the medical practice may bring wrong result fatalistically because of the unpredictablility of life. To demand for compensation of the damage to the doctors about these wrong result, the patient side holds the burden of proof that is between medical practice and demage, and there is damage from doctor's malpractice according to the accepted theory about the fundamental principle of distribution of the burden of proof. This falls not only under the liability of Tort Law, but also liability of Contract Law. However, the patient may be in difficult situation to prove the malpractice of doctors since he or she cannot recognize the facts because he or she was in unconscious while the medical practice was conducted, or they cannot judge precisely even though they recognize the facts. Nevertheless, the lawsuits against medical malpractice are the field that never achieves the equality of arms since the most of the evidence belong to the doctor's side. Hence, to maintain the principle of the equality of arms under the constitution, the theory leads to alleviate the burden of proof that patients hold. However, the doctors cannot be asked for the burden of proof that they conduct medical practice without errors. Because the doctors may experience difficulty to prove their innocence as the patients because of the unique characteristic that medical practices have. Therefore, the methods of the alleviation of the patient's burden of proof should have the equality of arms and the equal opportunity between the patients and the doctors with the evaluation of the justifiable interest from both the patients and the doctors. As the methods of the alleviation of the burden of proof, the alleviation of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof or resolutely the conversion of the burden may be considered. However, Recognizing the exception from general principle with converting the burden of proof is not proper in principle because the doctors may experience difficulty of the proof as the patients may have. If the difficulty of proof can be resolved by alleviating of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof, it is more desirable resolution rather than converting the burden of proof.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.57-127
• /
• 2008

In medical malpractice lawsuits, negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risks of harm. Thus, the essence of negligence is a breach of obligations to be attentive, and the breach of obligations to be is negligence. However, whether negligence is or not depends on time, place, litigation forms and the judge since the meaning of negligence is wavering on the basis of abstract and normative judgment. In this thesis, what is medical negligence, a breach of obligations of attention for a doctor in medical malpractice lawsuits, would be it further enacted that doctors have the responsibility to protect the patients as a subordinate duty due to a principle of faith and sincerity besides the main duty for medical contract-performance since the suit is a litigation form to be based on responsibilities of experts, especially doctors, though having factors that are non-contractual as a trait for medical treatment. Further on the concept, when the plaintiff asserts and proves a specific fact from the recent moderation of the burden of proof about medical malpractices, whether the court should find a true bill in medical malpractice actually or not has been discussed.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.147-170
• /
• 2016

International maritime law conventions concerned with cargo liabilities have sought to achieve solutions which will be acceptable to a wide range of states. The Rotterdam Rules was approved by the UN Assembly on 11 December 2008. The Rotterdam Rules are intended to replace The Hague and Hamburg Rules. This paper is comparing The Rotterdam Rules with The Hague and Hamburg Rules for the carrier' liabilities and exceptions in order to find carrier' liability System, the burden of proof and exceptions in the International maritime Rules. The purpose of this paper is considering the carrier's principal recourse for defending himself inmost cargo claims. The first area analyze the transfer of carrier's fundamental Liability system in the International Rules. The second is the matter on the appointment of proof in order to establish liability or to be relieve of liability. And the third is the change of the carrier's possible exclusions from liability in the International maritime Rules. From the result of the said analysis, my paper suggests differences of the exclusions in the Rotterdam Rules comparing with the Hague and Hamburg Rules, and features of the Rotterdam Rules appling exceptions on the basis of the Hague and Hamburg Rules with regard to carrier's liability and burden of proof. The former is the inclusion of three exclusions, the deleted natural fault, and The provision making the carrier responsible for the acts of its servants or agents in the 'fire on the ship' of the Rotterdam Rules. The latter is deleting the principle of overriding obligation related to carrier's obligation of seaworthiness in the Rotterdam Rules, the burden of proof being diverted from the carrier to the carrier and the shipper in the cargo damage caused by two factors(one for which the carrier was liable and the other for which it was excusable) in the new rules.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.49-79
• /
• 2021

피고의 잘못된 임플란트 시술로 인하여 원고는 임플란트 보철물 도재 파절 및 역미소선, 치주염 등의 심각한 손상을 입은 사건에서 피고는 원고에게 불법행위 또는 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상으로 향후 치료비와 위자료를 지급하라는 판결이 나왔다. 이번 대상판결에서는 치과치료에 관한 사안으로서 일반적인 의료과오소송과 마찬가지로 고도의 전문적 지식을 필요로 하는 분야로서 비전문가인 일반인으로서는 치과의사가 의료행위 과정에서 주의의무 위반이 있었는지 여부나 환자에게 발생한 손해 사이의 인과관계가 있었는지 여부를 밝혀내기 극히 어려우므로 증명책임을 경감하는 것으로 구성한 것이다. 대상판결의 사안에서처럼 수술 도중이나 수술 후에 환자에게 중한 결과의 원인이 된 증상이 발생한 경우에 그 증상의 발생에 관하여 의료상의 과실 이외의 다른 원인이 있다고 보기 어려운 간접사실들이 증명된 경우에는 그와 같은 증상이 의료상의 과실에 기한 것이라고 추정할 수 있다고 판시하였다. 특히 대상판결에서는 일반적인 수술적 치료의 사안이 아닌 임플란트의 시술의 사례로서 수단채무로서 치과진료의 의료과오소송에서 치과의사의 과실에 관한 환자의 입증책임을 소위 '사실상 추정론'에 근거하여 대폭 경감함으로써 의료기술의 발달과 증가하는 현대 의료과오소송에서 세계적 입법추세인 입증책임의 전환에 더욱 가까이 접근하였다는 점에서 큰 의미를 부여할 수 있다. 이러한 점은 대상판결에서 치과의사의 '과실'의 판단에 있어 "그 증상이나 발생에 관하여 의료상의 과실 이외의 다른 원인이 있다고 보기 어려운 간접사실이 증명되면 그와 같은 증상이 의료상의 과실에 기한 것이라고 추정할 수 있다"고 판시한 점에서 명확히 확인된다.

• 한국산업보건학회지
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.115-125
• /
• 2015

Objectives: The major objectives of this study are to review the EU CLP Regulations to propose ways of improving the reliability of MSDS and labels. Methods: To review the EU CLP Regulations, we used EU documents including directives and regulations on chemical management. In addition, we used EU governmental agency reports to illuminate the history and background of the CLP. We found the EU CLP's instruments for reliable hazard communication and evaluated the operations of the instruments. Results: EU CLP Regulations have four instruments for the EU CLP Regulations to make hazard communication reliable. These instruments are GHS, the harmonized CMR and respiratory sensitive substances classification list, C&L inventory and restriction of trade secrets. These are highly useful for achieving the objectives of REACH and CLP(no data-no market and changing the burden of proof). Conclusions: Changing the burden of proof is a key principle for achieving a society safe from hazardous chemicals. Chemical manufacturers and importers alone should bear the responsibility for reliable MSDS. We recommend benchmarking the EU CLP Regulations in order to change efficiently the burden of proof. Trade secrets should be limited to low-hazard substances and be approved by the government before the chemical product is on the market. Like the C&L inventory, chemical product information including substances identification and hazard properties should be notified, aggregated and be opened to public on the Internet. Finally, we recommend a MSDS registration system once again.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.195-204
• /
• 2007

It is a general principle that the plaintiff takes burden of proof about negligence and causation in a civil compensation litigation. And it is the same in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Korean courts have made diverse efforts to mitigate the plaintiff's duty to prove in medical malpractice lawsuits under the name of justice and impartiality. One of those theoretical attempt is 'presumption of causation'. The Supreme Court, since 1995, has developed a new logic for the theory of 'presumption of causation' which is characterized by a phrase "layman's common sense". The Court presumes the defendant's negligence and causation when the plaintiff alleges and proves the facts which can be pointed out and expressed by a layman with common sense. And if the defendant fails to prove that the result was caused by other fact than own medical activities, the defendant shall be defeated. I realize that this theory has problem for justice and impartiality. I would say that two fators should be considered and added to this logic. First,are defendant's acts generally belonging to gross negligence which would cause that kind of bad result? Second, is it recognized that there would be the causation generally and statistically between the cause and the result?

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.139-164
• /
• 2011

Traditionally courts have been adopted over the years two standards of dealing with compliance of documents such as strict compliance and substantial compliance and the substantial compliance, which was somewhat less demanding than the strict compliance. However the new guidelines of ICC's international standard banking practice for the examination of documents under documentary credits set up how the UCP is to be applied in practice. The payment obligations of an issuing bank to a beneficiary are independence of the performance or the nonperformance of any contract underlying the letter of credit. However, strictly applying the principle of independence and abstraction could produce unfair results by operating unjustly enrich an unscrupulous beneficiary in case of fraud. Accordingly, when a beneficiary presents complying documents, the issuing bank is bound to honour the presentation unless the fraud rule applies on the facts of the case such as forged or material fraud. If it does, the issuing bank(issuer) needs not pay despite the complying presentation of documents by the beneficiary under the Uniform Commercial Code Article 5-109 and case law in America. However the fraud rule was not addressed in UCP 600. In conclusion, view in terms of legal principle and the court cases is variable and difficult to honour or dishonour the presentation in case of application of the independence principle and fraud rule such as the problems on burden of proof timely, possibility of granting injunction in order to protect against victim for bona fide applicant.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.159-193
• /
• 2015

병원감염 사례에 관한 판결의 주류적 태도는 병원감염 발생으로 인한 손해의 분담을 사실상 환자 측에 전가하는 문제가 있다고 판단되므로, 손해의 공평 타당한 분담을 그 지도 원리로 하는 손해배상제도의 이념에 비추어 환자 측의 증명책임을 대폭 완화하기 위한 방법을 강구할 필요성이 있다. 이와 관련하여 진료계약을 민법상 전형계약으로 규정하고, 병원감염과 같은 의료 측이 전적으로 지배할 수 있었던 경우에는 일반적 진료상 위험이 실현된 때 진료자의 오류가 추정된다고 명문으로 과실추정규정을 둔 독일민법을 검토하였다. 진료계약은 매우 빈번하고 광범위하게 일반 국민의 실생활에서 체결되고 있으며, 그로 인한 분쟁도 다양하게 발생하고 있으므로, 진료계약을 독일과 같이 민법의 전형계약으로 규정함으로써 계약 내용과 분쟁 발생 시 증명책임 등에 관해 규율할 필요성이 있다. 병원감염 사건의 경우 법률에 의해 과실을 추정하고, 병원감염 예방을 위한 노력을 철저히 시행한 기관에 한하여 병원감염 사고로 인한 손해가 발생한 경우 그 비용을 지원하도록 사회보험을 통한 제도적 보완이 필요하다고 생각되며, 향후 이에 관한 면밀한 연구와 검토가 요구된다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2023

의료과오 민사소송의 주된 쟁점은, 과실, 과실과 손해 사이의 인과관계이다. 진료 상 과실이 증명된 경우 인과관계 추정과 관련하여 종래 대법원 1995. 2. 10. 선고93다52402 판결이 있으나, 위 판결 문언 상 요건을 충족하는 사안은 찾기 어렵고, 그럼에도 실무는 위 판결을 인용하면서 인과관계를 추정하는 경우가 많아 위 판결 문언과 정합성이 없다는 비판이 꾸준히 제기되었다. 대법원은 대상 민사판결에서, 민사소송에서 진료 상 과실이 증명된 경우 인과관계 추정에 관한 법리를 정비하여 새롭게 제시하였다. 이에 의하면, 환자 측이 의료행위 당시 임상의학 분야에서 실천되고 있는 의료수준에서 통상의 의료인에게 요구되는 주의의무의 위반 즉 진료 상 과실로 평가되는 행위의 존재를 증명하고, 그 과실이 환자 측의 손해를 발생시킬 개연성이 있다는 점을 증명한 경우에는, 진료 상 과실과 손해 사이의 인과관계를 추정하여 인과관계 증명책임을 완화한다. 여기서 손해 발생의 개연성은 자연과학적, 의학적 측면에서 의심이 없을 정도로 증명될 필요는 없으나, 해당 과실과 손해 사이의 인과관계를 인정하는 것이 의학적 원리 등에 부합하지 않거나 해당 과실이 손해를 발생시킬 막연한 가능성이 있는 정도에 그치는 경우에는 증명되었다고 볼 수 없다. 한편 진료 상 과실과 손해 사이의 인과관계가 추정되는 경우에도 의료행위를 한 측에서는 환자 측의 손해가 진료 상 과실로 인하여 발생한 것이 아니라는 것을 증명하여 추정을 번복시킬 수 있다. 한편 민사사건과 달리 형사사건에서는 '합리적 의심이 없을 정도의 증명'이 기준이고, 인과관계 추정 법리가 적용되지 않는다. 이에 따라 동일한 의료사고에 관하여 같은 날 동일한 재판부에서 선고된 업무상과실치사 형사사건에서는 진료 상 과실과 사망 사이 인과관계에 대한 증명 부족을 이유로 무죄 취지로 파기환송하였다. 대상 형사판결은, 의료과오 관련 형사 사건에서 '업무상 과실'이 인정되더라도 '인과관계'에 대한 확실한 증명이 부족하면 유죄로 판단하지 말라는 취지의 판결이다.