• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.337-361
• /
• 2010

In the case of Korea, both of modern medicine and oriental medicine are admitted as medical practices in the system. In other words, healthcare system is dualized. However, medical practice that corresponds to oriental medicine in Korea is substitution of medical practice in cases of foreign countries. For use of medical devices, it is provided only for doctors and medical technician relevant to use. Particularly, although oriental medicine is recognized as orthodox medicine in terms of the features of Korean medical system, superintendency of oriental doctors is not identical with that of doctors for use of medical devices and superintendency toward medical technicians. Recently, Cheongju District Court decided that superintendency of oriental doctor upon physical therapist is not acknowledged. It can be said that the judgement is opposed to the original verdict which judged that oriental doctors' employment and guidance of oriental doctors upon physical therapist is permissible. Hence this study aimed to review on domestic medical law system, which is dualized, roles of medical professionals, intent of the medical license system, provisions related to medical technician law and relevant precedents. Regulations on practices other than licensed practices by medical professionals are made because medical practices may affect on danger toward life and body of human and public health also. Therefore, the nation regulates medical professionals having licenses to perform medical practices within the range of the licenses. It is clearly prescribed that medical technicians may perform medical practices under instructions of doctors or dentists pursuant to the medical technician law. In addition, the court also judges that it is out of the license of oriental doctors if they use CT devices and limits the use of modern medical devices by oriental doctors. That is to say that it limits oriental doctors' employment of medical technicians and pursuant of oriental doctors on medical technicians as well.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제67권
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2015

U. N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter the 'CISG' or the 'Convention') has been in force more than 37 years. The CISG responds to the need for uniform sales law. First of all, the biggest barrier against the uniformity in sales law is so-called "homeward trend". Professor Honnold, who served as secretary of UNCITRAL during the time in which the CISG was developed, pointed out the danger of "homeward trend" like this in his Article. "One threat to international uniformity in interpretation is a natural tendency to read the international text through the lenses of domestic law." CISG Article 79 is the principal provision governing the extent to which a party is exempt from liability for a failure to perform any of his obligations due to an impediment beyond his control. So-called 'Manfred Forberich' decision regarding the article 79 represents the most extreme example of what is likely the most dangerous error that tribunals applying the CISG can make. CISG Article 79 only governs impossibility of performance, and there is a controversy whether a disturbance which does not fully exclude performance, but it considerably more difficult or onerous(hardship, change of circumstances, economic impossibility) can be considered as an impediment. Unlike PICC and PECL, the CISG governs contract of sale. Therefore, events such as a sudden increase in the price of raw materials or a dramatic devaluation of currency, will not allow the seller to avoid his liability for non-delivery of the goods or to require renegotiation of the terms of the contract of sale. We should bear in mind that the CISG should be interpreted and applied in the context of the CISG itself.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2005

In the provisions of 'the Arbitration Law of China, there are special provisions for international arbitration. When a court refuses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or cancel the domestic awards relating to international arbitration, they have to adopt the provisions of 'Chinese Civil Procedure Law'. These provisions are the same as the provisions of Korean Civil Procedure Law concerning the reasons of renewal. In the Korean Arbitration Act, those provisions disappeared when it was revised on December 31, 1999. Among the characteristics of the Chinese arbitration system, a serious question is that it provides only institutional arbitration and there is no ad-hoc arbitration in the Chinese Arbitration Law. On the other hand, when the parties appoint three arbitrators according to their agreement, the parties appoint the third arbitrator by mutual agreement and when they fail to agree, the Arbitration Committee appoints the third arbitrator. In practice, as the parties hardly agree on the third arbitrator or sole arbitrator, the Committee usually appoints them. And appointing an arbitrator from out of their panel of arbitrators is permitted these days only under examination by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Other arbitration committees except the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission are still prohibited from making appointments from out of their panel of arbitrators. Accordingly, arbitration in China cannot be predicted and poses a question about legal stability as party autonomy is restricted in the appointment of arbitrators and arbitral procedure. Such being the case it is strongly recommended to select Korea as the place of arbitration in transactions with China. However it is better to arbitrate than to file a law suit in China.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제28권3호
• /
• pp.217-221
• /
• 2018

Korea Institute for Family Planning (KIFP) was established on July 1, 1971 (Law 2270) and Korea Health Development Institute (KHDI) was established on April 19, 1976 (Law 2857). Korea Institute for Population and Health (KIPH) was formed through the merger of KIFP and KHDI (Act 3417) on July 1, 1981. Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs (KIHASA), the former KIPH, was renamed KIHASA on December 30, 1989 (Law 4181) with its additional function of research in social security. It was transferred on January 29, 1999 to the Office of State Affairs Coordination pursuant to the Law on the Establishment, Operation and Promotion of State-Sponsored Organizations (Law 5733). Annually it conducts approximately 50 short- and long-term research projects to accumulate a wide range of research experience. Also it studies and evaluates the primary issues of national health services, health and medical industries, social insurance, social security, family welfare, and population. it conducts joint research projects and active information exchange programs with related domestic and international organizations through seminars and conferences. It executes specific research and development projects according to the government's requests. it educates and trains people domestically and abroad by disseminating a wide-range of information on health and social affairs. it conducts national household surveys on areas of fertility, health and medical care of the disabled, the elderly, and low-income earners. The mid- and long-term research goals of KIHASA should be established and managed systematically. A new organization such as 'Center for Policy Evaluation' is needed to enhance research abilities and experiences. Able research personnels should be recruited and current researchers should try to develop their abilities.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제35권
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

This paper purposes to examine the setting aside and the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards and their implications for practitioners. The aim of challenging an award before a national court at the seat, or place, of arbitration is to have it modified in some way by the relevant court, or more usually, to have that court declare that the award is to be disregarded (i.e. "annulled" or "set aside") in whole or in part. If an award is set aside or annulled by the relevant court, it will usually be treated as invalid and accordingly unenforceable, not only by the courts of the seat of arbitration but also by national courts elsewhere. This is because, under both the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the competent court may refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of an award that has been "set aside" by a court of the seat of arbitration. The New York Convention set out various grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. The provisions of the Model Law governing recognition, enforcement or setting-aside of awards are almost identical to those set out in the Convention. Especially, the New York Convention and the Model Law state that an arbitral award may be refused and set aside if a national court of the place of arbitration finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of its own country. Each state has its own concept of what is required by its "public policy". It is possible to envisage, for example, a dispute over the division of gaming profits from a casino. In many states, the underlying transaction that led to the award would be regarded as a normal commercial transaction and the award would be regarded as valid. Indeed, it is a consistent theme to be found in the legislation and judical decision of many countries. If a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would provide an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside and refusal for purely domestic policy consideration.

• 한국사회복지학
• /
• 제44권
• /
• pp.262-287
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study is to monitor the implementation of UN Convention on the Rights of the Children (CRC) and to find out new directions for the promotion on the children's rights in Korea. Based on the module of International Save the Children Alliance (1993) about the children's rights and the Indicators of Korean Children's Wellbeing (Korean Council for Children's Rights, 1999), the revised Korean child welfare law (2000) as a related domestic law has compared with the 54 articles of CRC (1989). The results of this study are analyzed as follows: The Korean child welfare law has only 2 articles on the civil and political rights of the children in special need and neglects the economic, social and cultural rights of the general children at home. In consequence the Korean law has few survival rights of the general children for securing their adequate living standards and supplementing their parents' role. And it limits only to the development rights of the children in special need, therefore, it neglects the genera: children's rights to information, play and leisure, cultural activities. Above all, it has only 2 articles on the participation rights of the children in special circumstances. On the other hand, based on the indicators of Korean Children's Wellbeing, the collected data say that the budget for the child welfare is only 1.12% of the total budget of the ministry of the health and welfare and its 96.28% is for the children in substitutional care. Based on the results, implications for practice and future research are discussed, and new directions for the promotion of the children's rights are also suggested.

• 한국의사학회지
• /
• 제36권1호
• /
• pp.31-50
• /
• 2023

Through this paper, all the provisions of the enforcement statutes stipulated in the Joseon's law code were investigated and major medical issues and interests in the Joseon Dynasty were analyzed. The characteristics of each period reviewed in the text are as follows. The early Joseon Dynasty is divided into three periods. First of all, Joseon filled the gap in the law with the active acceptance of the Ming Dynasty's law code, Daemyeongrul, which conformed to Confucian virtue. Next, the completion of Gyeonggukdaejeon was an opportunity to prepare the basis for Joseon's medical laws. Lastly, from the late 15th century to the 16th century, the existing medicine promotion measures and emphasis on hyangyak(domestic herb) continued. it can be said that Joseon's politicians needed a medical policy based on Confucian virtues and maintained state-led promotion policies, but on the other hand, there was no other alternative to try newly by reflecting the limitations and failures of the policy. The late Joseon Dynasty is also divided into three periods. First of all, the period from the late 16th century to the early 18th century was marked by the growth of families in technical positions. The era of King Yeongjo can be said to be the period of reorganization of medical related laws. Finally, the period after the late 18th century is a period of passive regulation and supplementation. Lastly, the revision of the actual medical law was not made or reflected in era of King Jeongjo. In the case of the early Joseon Dynasty, the policy shifted from state-led to families in technical positions. However, in the 19th century, the weakening of the royal authority led to the weakening of the overall administrative system of the country, and the pharmaceutical policy had to be limited.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

• KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems (TIIS)
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.843-859
• /
• 2018

Cybersecurity has emerged as a serious problem in Korea and there have been relevant movements to improve domestic cybersecurity policy and system. However, discussions have yet to result in actual progress and the legislation for improvement of cybersecurity policy and system have been stagnant until now. As evidenced by the introduction of primary government legislation bill for national cybersecurity in 2017, the preparations for improvements to the policy and system are still in progress. However, we cannot be positive about the possibility of implementing these improvements during the process. Recognition of the importance of cybersecutiry has gradually risen and is more prevalent than in years past, however, in-depth discussions are not being made. In principle, misunderstandings about cybersecurity itself and insufficient understandings of the relevant legislation seem to cause such problems. Therefore, it is necessary to review key issues related to the improvement of cybersecurity policy and system and reconsider tasks for the future. Such issues include the relationship between cybersecurity and fundamental rights, establishing responsibility and capability of each of entities for cybersecurity, and the role of the military in cybersecurity. This type of in-depth discussion will be helpful for finding ways to improve upon cybersecurity policy and system. Moreover, this study aims to key issues with questionnaire survey and political and normative inquiry.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제50권
• /
• pp.27-59
• /
• 2011

This article attempts to describe and analyze the rules on the service provider's duty to provide his service in conformity with the contract under the Draft Common Frame of Reference (here-in-after DCFR), which are applied to construction, storage, design and factual information contracts. It categorizes such rules in accordance with the requirements of conformity with the contract, the time when the service provided must be in conformity with the contract, and the exemptions of the service provider's duty. On the basis of such categorization, it examines the rules on the service provider's duty in each type of service contract under the DCFR. By doing so, it seeks to figure out how the members of EU compromised on the various issues of the service provider's duty under the DCFR which is regarded as the first uniformed legislation in the area of the service contract. This may provide some guidance to the legislators of domestic law for their amendment or interpretation of their laws. In addition to them, this article also seeks to point out problems in terms of their interpretations and gaps in their rules to cover various aspects of non-conformity and put forward some solutions for such problems and gaps.