• 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.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.39-47
• /
• 2008

오늘날 미국의 민간경비산업은 빠른 성장을 보이고 있으며, 이의 규모는 공경비인 경찰을 훨씬 능가하고 있다. 주지하는 바와 같이 미국의 민간경비는 치안서비스의 민영화 내지 공동생산에 이론적 근거를 두고 더욱 성장할 수 있는 토대를 구축하고 있다. 그런데, 민간경비의 성장 이면에는 민간경비에 의한 민사 및 형사책임 문제가 중요한 이슈로 제기되고 있다. 이 글에서는 미국 민간경비의 민사책임 가운데 불법행위 책임을 중심으로 살펴보기로 한다. 민사책임에 있어서 계약책임은 계약에 의하여 서로 채권 채무관계에 서는 자들 사이에서 특수하게 일어나는 문제인데 대하여, 불법행위책임은 이러한 특별한 관계의 유무와는 상관없이 사법(私法)적 관계에서 일반시민 누구와의 사이에서도 언제든지 일어날 수 있는 문제라는 점에서 차이가 있다. 따라서 아래에서는 민간경비에 의한 불법행위 책임의 유형 및 일정한 특성, 그리고 이와 관련된 사건 및 몇 가지 판례를 살펴보고자 한다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.131-157
• /
• 2015

국민건강보험공단은 의사가 요양급여기준을 위반하여 처방을 함으로써 국민건강보험공단이 약국에 약제비를 지급하게 된 것은 의사가 국민건강보험공단에 대해 민사상 불법행위를 한 것이라고 주장하며 손해배상청구를 하였다. 대법원이 이를 인정하는 판결이 잇따르자, 국민건강보험공단은 의사들이 의료법을 위반하여 진료를 하여 약국에 지급하게 된 약제비나 해당 의료기관에 지급하게 된 요양급여비용에 대해서도 모두 국민건강보험공단에 대한 민법상 불법행위라고 주장하며 손해배상을 청구하였으며, 대법원은 이를 모두 인정하였다. 그러나 우리나라 국민건강보험제도에서 보험급여의 주체는 국민건강보험공단이며, 환자가 의료기관에 진료를 요청하여 의료기관이 행하는 요양급여 역시 보험급여이므로 이러한 요양급여를 행하는 주체 역시 국민건강보험공단이다. 그리고 국민건강보험법은 의사의 의료법위반행위를 규제하기 위해 만든 법이 아니므로 의사의 의료법 위반행위를 국민건강보험공단에 대한 민법상 불법행위책임에서의 위법성으로 포섭할 수 없다. 그렇다면 환자가 보건복지부장관으로부터 부여 받은 면허를 가진 의사에 의해 요양급여기준에 맞는 진료를 받은 경우에는 국민건강보험공단은 민법상 환자에게 요양급여를 해 줄 의무를 면하는 이득을 얻었으므로 설사 해당 의사가 진료를 하는 과정에 의료법을 위반한 행위를 하였더라도 국민건강보험공단으로서는 손해가 없다. 대법원이 의료법위반으로 진료를 한 행위를 모두 국민건강보험공단에 대한 민법상 불법행위책임으로 인정하는 것은 국민건강보험공단이 보험급여의 주체로서 보험급여를 해 줄 의무를 면하였다는 이득은 고려하지 않고, 오로지 의사에게 요양급여비용을 지급하였다는 측면만을 고려한 것으로서 민법 제750조의 법리에 어긋난다. 의사가 의료법을 위반하였다면 의료법에 따라 제재를 받을 일이지, 국민건강보험법으로 규율할 일이 아니며, 대법원이 위와 같이 판결한 것은 국민건강보험법의 법리와 민법의 법리를 혼동한 탓으로 생각된다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.227-255
• /
• 2011

Recently, many nations said "yes" to human embryonic stem cell research, signing an executive order to permit funding for the research in the mame of achieving health and life of humankind. Human Embryo Research is permitted by our Bioethics & Biosafety Act. But, illegal research cannot be divorced from civil liability since it requires the destruction of eggs of fertilized eggs and personal rights of embryo-creator. After all, though we allow to do research embryo, we should control the capacity of abuse of embryo research for embryo-creator. If research violate the law(Bioethics & Biosafety Act or Civil Law, etc), it comes to a delict by pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss. When it comes to pecuniary loss, Human Embryo is not body but special property. Supreme Court maintained a stance that mental suffering is generally deemed as compensable for damages for the loss of property where a person's property right is invaded by a tort or non-performance of obligation. Thus, where mental suffering occurs, which cannot be compensated by recovery of property losses, the situation must be a special circumstance and the injured could claim consolation money for such losses only if the offender knew or would have known of such special circumstances(Supreme Court Decision 96Da31574 delivered on Nov, 26, 1996, etc.). That is to say, Supreme Court regards mental suffering through person's property right invaded by a tort as damages that have arisen through special circumstances. According to Civil law article 393 (2), the injured could claim consolation money for such losses only if only if the offender had foreseen or could have foreseen such circumstances. Also our court will solve through damages for non-pecuniary loss by complementary function of consolation money in that pecuniary loss could be difficult to valuate.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.123-164
• /
• 2014

Under the new system of 'Separation of pharmaceutical prescription and dispensing' in Korea, which was implemented in 2000, physician could not dispense a medicine, and outpatient should have a physician's prescription filled at a drugstore. After pharmacist makes up outpatient's prescription, National Health Insurance Service(NHIS) pay for outpatient's medicine to pharmacist, except an outpatient's own medicine charge. And NHIS only pay for outpatient's prescription fee to physician and, physician doesn't derive profit from dispensing medicine in itself. Nevertheless, if physician writes out a prescription with violation of 'Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits', NHIS clawed back the payment of outpatient's prescription and medicine from the physician or the medical institution which the physician belongs to. In the past, NHIS's confiscation was in accordance with 'the National Health Care Insurance Act, Article 52, Clause 1'. But, since 2006 when the Supreme Court declared that there was no legal basis on the NHIS's confiscation of outpatient's medicine payment, NHIS had put in a claim for illegal prescriptions on the basis 'the Korean Civil law, Article 750(tort)'. So, Many medical institutions filed civil actions against NHIS. The key point of this actions was whether the issuing outpatient prescriptions with violations of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits constitute of the law of tort. On this point, the first trial and the second trial took different position. Finally the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitution of the law of tort in 2013. In this paper, the author will review critically the decision of the Supreme Court, and consider the relativeness between the legal effect of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits and the constitution of the issuing outpatient prescriptions with violations of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits as the law of tort.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.217-260
• /
• 2013

In connection to the civil liability of the medical malpractice, plaintiff and courts are solving the medical disputes with theory of the liability based on tort law. because contract law does not enact the right of claim of solatium and a plaintiff's lawyer and courts hesitate to use contract law. Medical treatment of doctor is main debt in medical contract and its in-complete performance gives rise to the violations of human's life, body and health. Consequently a breach of medical contract leads to violations of person-al rights. These violations spring from liability of contract as well as tort and damages from them are recognized based on medical contract law. A duty of explanation of doctor is a independent and appendant debt to the treatment debt. However its breach provokes violations of human's life, body and health as well as a right self-determination. Therefore consolation money claim should be recognized. In case of the violation of patient's life, body and health, patient's family al-so can demand consolation money due to the violation of their's own mental pain. However in case of the violation of only patient's self-determination without informed concent, they can not demand it by reason of the violation of patient's self-determination. But by reason of the violation of patient's life, body and health that were recognized by proximate causal relation between violation of duty of explanation and abd execution, they can do.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2008

In proportion to recent developments in aviation technology and growth of the air transport market, the risk of damages to third parties caused by aircrafts and the likelihood of unlawful interference on an aircraft in flight has grown larger. The war risk insurance market was paralyzed by the 9/11 terror event. And if another event on the scale of 9/11 occurs, compensations for third party damages will be impossible. Recognizing the need to modernize the existing legal framework and the absence of a globally accepted authority that deals with third party liability and compensation for catastrophic damage caused by acts of unlawful interference, the ICAO and various countries have discussed a liability and compensation system that can protect both third party victims and the aviation industry for the 7 years. In conclusion, in order to provide adequate protection for victims and the appropriate protection for air transport systems including air carriers, work on modernizing the Rome Convention should be continued and the new Convention should be finalized in the near future. Korea has not ratified the relevant international treaties, i.e. Rome Convention 1933, 1952 and 1978, and has no local laws which regulate the damage caused by aircraft to third parties on land. Consequently, it has to depend on the domestic civil tort laws. Most of the advanced countries in aviation such as the United States, England, Germany, France and even China, have incorporated the International Conventions to their national air law and governed carriers third party liability within their jurisdiction. The Ministry of Justice organized the Special Enactment Committee for Air Transport chapter under Commercial Law. The Air Transport chapter, which currently includes third party liability, is in the process of instituting new legislation. In conclusion, to settle such problems through local law, it is necessary to enact as soon as possible domestic legislation on the civil liability of the air carrier which has been connected with third party liability and aviation insurance.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.133-170
• /
• 2022

대법원 2021. 7. 29. 선고 2018다228486 판결은 책임능력 있는 정신질환자의 보호의무자의 감독의무 위반으로 인한 손해배상책임의 근거를 민법 제750조로 명시하였다. 이 판결은 보호의무자가 구 정신보건법에 따라 정신질환자에 대한 감독의무를 부담함을 근거로, 보호의무자에게 민법 제750조에 따른 감독의무 소홀로 인한 불법행위책임의 성립을 인정하고 있다. 그러나 '감독할 법정의무'를 명문의 규정으로 요구하는 민법 제755조 제1항의 경우와 달리, 민법 제750조는 일반 불법행위책임을 규정하고 있을 뿐이므로, 민법 제750조에 따라 감독의무 위반으로 인한 불법행위책임을 인정하기 위해서는, 감독의무의 근거가 반드시 법률일 것을 요하지 아니한다. 이 경우 사회상규나 조리, 신의칙, 형평의 원칙에 의해서도 감독의무를 인정할 수 있다. 보호의무자의 감독의무는 정신질환자의 행동으로 인한 모든 결과를 방지해야 하는 일반적인 의무가 아니라 합리적으로 제한된 범위에서의 의무이다. 따라서 보호의무자가 피보호자인 정신질환자가 타인을 위해할 가능성이 있다는 구체적인 위험을 인지하였는데도 대비를 하지 않은 경우와 같이 정신질환자의 행위에 관해서 책임을 묻는 것이 타당한 객관적 상황이 인정되는지 여부에 따라 개별적으로 판단하여야 한다. 정신건강증진 및 정신질환자 복지서비스 지원에 관한 법률에 따른 보호의무자에게는 피감독자에 대한 일반적인 자상타해방지감독의무까지 인정하기는 어렵다고 할 것이나, 보호의무자가 입원신청을 하였으나 정신건강의학과전문의가 입원등이 필요하다고 진단하지 않은 경우나 정신의료기관등의 장은 입원등을 받아들이지 않은 경우 및 정신질환자의 행동에 대해 보호의무자에게 구체적인 예견가능성이 없다고 판단될 경우에는 보호의무자의 감독의무 위반 자체가 없다고 보아야 하며, 설혹 감독의무 위반이 있다고 하더라도 정신질환자의 불법행위로 인한 손해와의 사이에 인과관계가 존재하지 않는다고 보아야 할 것이다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.75-101
• /
• 2012

As the Reublic of Korea revised the Commercial Code including 40 articles of air transport enacted newly on May 23, 2011, so Korea became first legislative examples in the Commercial Code of the developed and developing countries. I would like to explain briefly the main contents of my paper such as (1) history of enacting newly Part VI (air transport) in the Korea's revised commercial law, (2) legal background enacting newly Part VI (air transport) in the Korea's revised commercial law and the problems on the conditions of air transport, (3) every countries' legislative examples on the civil liability of aircraft's operator, (4) unlawful Interference Convention and general risk convention of 2009, (5) main contents and prospects of the revised Commercial Code for the liability of aircraft's operator etc as the followings. Meanwhile as the Aviation Act, Commercial Code and Civil Code in Korea and Japan did not regulated at all the legal basis of solution on the disputes between victims and offender for the amount of compensation for damage due to personal or property damage caused by aircraft accidents in Korea and Japan, so it has been raised many legal problems such as protection of victims, standard of decision in trial in the event of aircraft accident's lawsuit case. But the Korean Revised Commercial Code including Part VI, air transport regulations was passed by the majority resolution of the Korean National Assembly on April 29, 2011 and then the South Korean government proclaimed it on May 23 same year. The Revised Commercial Code enforced into tothe territory of the South Korea from November 24, 2011 after six month of the proclaimed date by the Korean Government. Thus, though Korean Commercial Code regulated concretely and respectively the legal relations on the liability of compensation for damage in the contract of transport by land in it's Part II (commercial activities) and in the contract of transport by sea in its Part V (marine commerce), but the Amended Commercial Act regulated newly 40 articles in it's Part VI (air transport) relating to the air carrier's contract liability on the compensation for damage caused by aircraft accidents in the air passengers and goods transport and aircraft operator's tort liability on compensation for damage caused by the sudden falling or collision of aircraft to third parties on the surface and so it was equipped with reasonable and unified system among the transport by land, marine and air. The ICAO adopted two new air law conventions setting out international compensation and liability rules for damage caused by aircraft to third parties at a diplomatic conference hosted by it from April 20 to May 2, 2009. The fight against the effects of terrorism and the improvement of the status of victims in the event of damage to third parties that may result either from acts of unlawful interference involving aircraft or caused by ordinary operation of aircraft, forms the cornerstone of the two conventions. One legal instrument adopted by the Conference is "the Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft" (Unlawful Interference Convention). The other instrument, "the Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties" (General Risk Convention), modernizes the current legal framework provided for under the 1952 Rome Convention and related Protocol of 1978. It is desirable for us to ratify quickly the abovementioned two conventions such as Unlawful Interference Convention and General Risk Convention in order to settle reasonably and justly as well as the protection of the South Korean peoples.

• 한국응급구조학회지
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.19-33
• /
• 2009

Purpose : To check the legal relation between rescue team and patient as well as legal responsibility for patient's damage intentionally or erroneously caused by rescue member, a public official, in the performance of relevant job ; to prevent legal dispute over rescue team and to present program for fair settlement of dispute and equitable and feasible burden of damage. Method : First, the legal principle of Civil Law, Criminal Law and Administrative Law related to the theme of this research will be investigated around research by literature. Second, the case of dispute related to rescue team will be introduced. Result: 1. If 119 rescue members as a public official intentionally or erroneously cause damage to patient in the performance of job, they shall bear civil, criminal and administrative responsibility. They shall bear civil responsibility for indemnity for damage due to default or tort. The typical criminal responsibility includes accidental homicide arising out of duty, preparing falsified official document, dereliction of duty, etc. In the administrative side, the state is responsible for indemnity for peculiar status of the rescue member, public official. 2. Though raising civil petition or legal dispute over unsatisfactory rescue service may be reasonable to guarantee the right of nation, such action may cause stress to rescue member as well as may lead to mental shrinking and defensive attitude only to take the basic first aid treatment which has low possibility of mistake instead of active first aid treatment so as to avoid legal responsibility. 3. The program that may prevent legal dispute over 119 rescue team includes expansion of manpower specialized in first aid treatment, enhancement of education on legal environment, development and application of standard job guideline, formation of mutual trust with patient, detailed explanation, preparing and keeping minute record, improvement of the rescue members' ability of first aid treatment and development of medical instruction mode. Conclusion : The best policy is to prevent legal dispute. If it is impossible to basically exclude the possibility of dispute, however, we need to make effort to minimize the occurrence, settle fairly and divide damage equitably and feasibly. To improve the preventible death rate of our first aid system to the level of advanced country, 119 rescue team which is in charge of the stage before hospital needs to positively enforce special first aid by improving the qualitative level of rescue service and to strive to prevent legal dispute that may occur in the process.