• 한국경영정보학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2007.06a
• /
• pp.699-704
• /
• 2007

In this study, we examine why there exist different legal systems in electronic commerce or online financial trading. When a fraud online transaction occurs and the online customer disputes the transaction, the online customer takes responsibility for the proof of her/his argument in many European countries while in the U.S., the burden of proof lays on the firm. This paper analyzes how these two different legal systems exist and how these can be applied to electronic commerce law. In particular, this paper intends to find the optimal level of e-commerce firms' investment on security and analyzes how security investments can be related to firm's profits and consumer's welfare depending on IT infrastructure and social trust environment. More on, this paper can be contributed to provide guidelines for regulatory framework on ecommerce online transactions and discuss social welfare implications.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.159-193
• /
• 2015

Owing to causes such as population aging, increased use of various medical devices, long-term hospitalization of various patients with reduced immune function such as cancer, diabetes, and organ transplant patients, and the growing size of hospitals, hospital infections are continuing to increase. As seen in the MERS crisis of 2015, hospital infections have become a social and national problem. In order to prevent damage due to such hospital infections, it is necessary to first strictly implement measures to prevent hospital infections, while, on the other hand, providing proper relief of damage suffered due to hospital infections. However, the mainstream attitude of judicial precedents relating to hospital infection cases has been judged to in fact shift responsibility over damages due to hospital infections on the patient. In light of the philosophy of the damage compensation system, whose guiding principle if the fair and proper apportionment of damages, there is a need to seek means of drastically relaxing the burden of proof on the patient's side relative to conventional legal principles for relaxing the burden of proof, or the theory of de facto estimation. In relation to such need, the German civil code (Burgerliches Gesetzbuch), which defines contracts of medical treatment as typical contracts under the civil code, and has presumption of negligence provisions stipulating that, in cases such as hospital infections which were completely under the control of the medical care providers, if risks in general medical treatment have been realized which cause violations of the life, body, or health of patients, error on the part of the person providing medical care is presumed, was examined. Contracts of medical treatment are entered into very frequently and broadly in the everyday lives of the general public, with various disputes owing thereto arising. Therefore, it is necessary to, by defining contracts of medical treatment as typical contracts under the civil code, regulate the content of said contracts, as well as the proof of burden when disputes arise. If stipulations in the civil code are premature as of yet, an option may be to regulate through a special act, as is the case with France. In the case of hospital infection cases, it is thought that 'legal presumption of negligence' relating to 'negligence in the occurrence of hospital infections,' which will create a state close to equality of arms, will aid the resolution of the realistic issue of the de facto impossibility of remedying damages occurring due to negligence in the process of occurrence of hospital infections. Also, even if negligence is presumed by law, as the patient side is burdened with proving the causal relationships, such drastic confusion as would occur if the medical care provider side is found fully liable if a hospital infection occurs may be avoided. It is thought that, alongside such efforts, social insurance policy must be improved so as to cover the expenses of medical institutions having strictly implemented efforts to prevent hospital infections in the event that they have suffered damages due to a hospital infection accident, and that close future research and examination into this matter will be required.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.129-149
• /
• 2016

Medical dispute means the dispute between the hospital and the patient due to a medical accident. In general, medical accidents must be in accordance with the terms that are used in the medical dispute adjustment method stated in Article 2 (definition). In relation to this, there is a need to discuss an efficient operation scheme for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in medical disputes. In addition, it is necessary to look at issues of civil liability and criminal liability. In particular, in the consumer dispute arbitration committee, there is a case to make a "decision not to adjust" in aggressive intervention in the process of conflict resolution. The medical staff, on the basis of its "decision," can use this as a proven material for civil and criminal cases. This is rather upon the determination of the consumer council as a typical side effect to defend the user's perspective. This is the "decision" as was expressed from an order, "not adjusted." It is also determined to be easy and clearly timely. In the medical litigation, it is requesting the burden of proof of a patient's cause-and-effect relationship with the doctors committing negligence and medical malpractice. This seems to require the promotion of legislation in the direction to reduce future cases. It is determined that the burden of proof of medical accidents must be improved. The institution receiving the medical accident should prevent a closure report. Further, it is necessary to limit the transition to a franchise point. In this paper, we understand the problems of the current medical dispute resolution system, trying to establish a medical dispute resolution system desirable through an efficient alternative. In addition, it wants help in the protection and realization in medical consumers' and patients' rights. The relevant authorities will take advantage of these measures. After all, this could contribute to the system for a smooth resolution of a medical dispute.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.57-81
• /
• 2016

It can determine the outcome of the lawsuit whether or not there is a causality between the medical malpractice of a physician and the patient's injury when the patient is filing a lawsuit against the physician in order to pursue civil liability for a medical accident. In medical malpractice lawsuits, it is not easy to judge causality between different civil cases because of the special nature of medical care. Also, information such as medical records is concentrated on doctors and the medical knowledge of the patient is relatively insufficient compared with the doctor. Therefore, it is recognized through medical malpractice lawsuits that the burden of proof of the causality burdened by the plaintiff patient is relaxed. In this paper, I examine the legal theory on how to recognize causality in medical civil liability and then concern the attitude of the case in Korea, which is divided into the types of the causality - such as the case of general medical practice, explanation duty, no causality with medical malpractice.

• Transactions of the Korean hydrogen and new energy society
• /
• v.34 no.6
• /
• pp.734-740
• /
• 2023

Hydrogen emphasis on safety management due to its high potential for accidents from wide explosive limits and low ignition energy. To prevent accidents, appropriate explosion-proof electrical equipment with installed to safe management of ignition sources. However, designing all facilities with explosion-proof structures can significantly increase costs and impose limitations. In this study, we optimize the barrier to effectively control the initial momentum in case of hydrogen release and form the control room as a non-hazardous area. We employed response surface method (RSM), the barrier distance, width and height of the barrier were set as variables. The Box-Behnken design method the selection of 15 cases, and FLACS assessed the presence of hazardous area. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis resulting in an optimized barrier area. Through this methodology, the workplace can optimize the barrier according to the actual workplace conditions and classify reasonable hazardous area, which is believed to secure safety in hydrogen facilities and minimize economic burden.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2023

The main issue in medical malpractice civil litigation is medical negligence and the causal relationship between medical negligence and damages. Regarding the presumption of causality in cases where medical negligence is proven, there is a previous Supreme Court decision 93da52402 on February 10, 1995, but it is difficult to find a case that satisfies the textual requirements of the above decision, and yet, in practice, the above decision is cited. In many cases, causal relationships were assumed, and criticism was consistently raised that it was inconsistent with the text of the above judgment. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reorganized and presented a new legal principle regarding the presumption of causality when medical negligence is proven in a civil lawsuit. According to this, If the patient proves ① the existence of an act that is assessed as a medical negligence, that is, a violation of the duty of care required of an ordinary medical professional at the level of medical care practiced in the field of clinical medicine at the time of medical practice, and ② that the negligence is likely to cause damages to the patient, the burden of proving the causal relationship is alleviated by presuming a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage. Here, the probability of occurrence of damage does not need to be proven beyond doubt from a natural scientific or medical perspective, but if recognizing the causal relationship between the negligence and the damage does not comply with medical principles or if there is a vague possibility that the negligence will cause damage, causality cannot be considered proven. Meanwhile, even if a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage is presumed, the party that performed the medical treatment can overturn the presumption by proving that the patient's damage was not caused by medical negligence. Meanwhile, unlike civil cases, the standard is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and the legal principle of presuming causality does not apply. Accordingly, in a criminal case of professional negligence manslaughter that was decided on the same day regarding the same medical accident, the case was overturned and remanded for not guilty due to lack of proof of a causal relationship between medical negligence and death. The above criminal ruling is a ruling that states that even if 'professional negligence' is recognized in a criminal case related to medical malpractice, the person should not be judged guilty if there is a lack of clear proof of 'causal relationship'.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2005.11a
• /
• pp.94-97
• /
• 2005

Seaworthiness is an important part of the carrier's obligation in the carriage of goods by sea. Especially seaworthiness of the ship is one of the most important obligations of the carrier in the field of international transport law. Therefore it will be important to examine the expected impacts by adopting a continuing duty of seaworthiness in UNCITRAL Draft Instrument from the Korea point of view because Korean Commercial Act provides that carriers are only obliged to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy before and at the beginning of the voyage. This paper examines the concept of the seaworthiness and analyses the provisions of the Draft Instrument for the duty of seaworthiness in comparison with the Korean Commercial Act.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.311-338
• /
• 2008

This paper aims to introduce an overview of the regime of expert witness in the medical malpractice litigation, and to provide a plan of how to make it improved. In regard with medical expert witness, several problems, such as time-consuming procedure, non-neural and unclear opinion without reasons provided, have been pointed out for several years. Lack of skill of the court and plaintiff/defender to question the expert is one of many cause to lead to the above problems. What is questioned to the expert? Because expert witness is used in determining probability of negligence, questions to the expert should be selected on the grounds of whether or not to obtain opinions or facts sufficient to let the judge infer negligence in view of the theory of proof burden established by the Supreme Court. In addition, to avoid non-neutral and unclear opinion, it is necessary to question the expert clearly, specifically and scientifically.

• IE interfaces
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.126-132
• /
• 2002

The objective of this study is to provide guidelines for expert witness in product liability lawsuits. The expert testimony is one of the powerful methods to mitigate the burden of the proof in product liability litigations. However, it has been seldomly accepted as a reliable evidence by trial judges because the expert's testimony has sometimes turned out to be illogical and unreliable. In order for the expert testimony to be admittable in the court, the expert should have a thorough understanding of his/her role as an expert witness and follow scientific methodology whose soundness has been generally accepted by both industries and academy.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2011

I take the position of the thirders on the sleeping beauty problem like Elga and criticize Lewisian halfers. In particular, I attack Franceschi's recent arguments for the halfers. In addition, I claim that Bostrom's and Kim's hybrid view is not satisfactory, because it is to pre-empt or to take the burden of proof that the problem is the genuine paradox. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to show that the thirders' argument is more intuitive than others and what the fallacies of the halfer's arguments are.