• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.141-168
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study is to substantially understand and identify experienced social exclusion of the disabled in Korea. For this, the 8 times in focus interview implemented on 31 of the disabled with regard to disability type, gender, age, education, job etc. The results, firstly it found that participants experienced material deprivation due to inequality on economic distributions, and the multi-deprivation of social rights overall social systems and scopes resulted from the disability discrimination against the organization of society. Nextly, it represented that they got the exclusion from social participation and isolation and alienation in social relationships in the dimension of society. In that, particularly, a sort of invisible type of social exclusion such as an intolerant and double social norm and values is found, which has been impacted on their impairment or disability in the participants. This founded results contribute on applying fundamental data for political and practical implementations for social inclusion of the disabled, as well as theoretical building for conception of social exclusion of the disabled.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.553-591
• /
• 2017

This article discussed whether so-called 'foreign judgments obtained by fraud' is in breach of public policy provided in Article 217(1)(3) of Civil Procedure Act and, if so, what the specific requirements could be. The summary of the conclusion is as follows. The 'foreign judgments obtained by fraud' is against the municipal procedural public policy and then shall not be recognized. In this regard one more question comes up whether reviewing if 'foreign judgments obtained by fraud' is in breach of the municipal procedural public policy is allowed in consideration of the principle of prohibition of $r{\acute{e}}vision$ au fond. Since the principle is applied entirely in the course of the above reviewing, it is allowed only when it does not breach the principle. The two instances that the reviewing is allowed are where the defendant was not able to produce evidences of fraud during foreign procedures and where the defendant's claim of fraud without evidences was rejected by the foreign court and then evidences of fraud were found after the foreign procedure was completed. On the other hand, the specific requirements for 'foreign judgments obtained by fraud' to be against public policy are following four requirements based on principle of strict interpretation of public policy. (1) plaintiff's intention to fraud, (2) preventing the defendant from being involved in the procedure by fraud or cheating the foreign court using manipulated evidences, (3) the defendant could not present himself in the foreign court procedure due to the plaintiff's extraneous fraud or the foreign court decided wrongly due to intrinsic fraud, and (4) defendant's fundamental procedural rights were breached to the extent that recognizing the effect of foreign judgments was against justice defendant's fundamental procedural rights. These results differ from the Supreme Court 2004. 10. 28. ruling 2002da74213 in many aspects. Most of all, in my opinion there is no need to distinguish between intrinsic fraud and extraneous fraud and reviewing 'foreign judgments obtained by fraud' is not in conflict with the principle of prohibition of $r{\acute{e}}vision$ au fond but the both may coexist. In this regard I expect the variation of the Supreme Court's position and hope to contribute to academia and practitioners.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.143-174
• /
• 2019

Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution, and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions. By the way, virtually multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated because the Supreme Court had interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if medical activities were not performed directly at the additional medical institution which was opened under the another doctor's license. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions with another doctor's license for the purpose of the maximization of profit, and did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, over-treatment, and commission treatment. Also, realistic problems such as the infringed health rights have arisen. Accordingly, lawmakers had come to amend the Medical Law to readjust the system of opening for medical institution so that medical personnel could not open or operate more than one medical institution for any reason. For this reason, the Constitutional Court recently declared a constitutional decision through a long period of in-depth deliberation because the constitutional petition and the adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes had been filed on whether Article 33 paragraph 8 of the revised medical law is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court acknowledged the "justice of purpose" in view of the importance of public medical institutions, of the prevention from seduction of for-profit patients and from over-treatment, and of the fact that health care should not be the object of commercial transactions. Given the risk that medical personnel might be subject to outside capital, the concern that the holder of the medical institution's opening certificate and the actual operator may be separated, the principle that the human body and life should not be just a means, and the current system's inability to identify over-treatment, it also acknowledged the 'minimum infringement'. Furthermore, The Constitutional Court judged it is constitutional in compliance with the principle of restricting fundamental rights, such as 'balance of legal interests'. In this regard, legislative complements are needed in order to effectively prevent the for-profit management and the over-treatment the Constitutional Court is concerned about. In this regard, consumer groups actively support the need for legislation, and health care providers groups also agree on the need for legislation. Therefore, the legislators should respect the recent Constitutional Court's decision and in the near future complete the complementary legislation to reflect the people's interests.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.223-259
• /
• 2020

With COVID-19 spreading rapidly around the world, research and development issues on treatments and vaccines for the virus are of high interest. Among them, Remdesivir was the first to show noticeable therapeutic effects and began clinical trials, with each country authorizing the use of the drug through emergency approval. However, Gilead Co., Ltd., the developer of Remdesivir, received a lot of criticism from civic groups for submitting the application for the marketing authorization as an orphan drug. This is because when a new drug got a marketing authorization as an orphan drug could be granted an exclusive status for seven year. The long-term exclusive status of an orphan drug comes from the policy purpose of motivating pharmaceutical companies to develop treatment opportunities for patients suffering from rare diseases, which was not appropriate to apply to infectious disease treatments. This paper provides a review of the problems and improvement directions of the domestic system through comparative legal consideration against the United States, Europe and Japan for the statutes which give exclusive status to medicines. The domestic system has a fundamental problem that it does not have explicit provisions in the statute in the manner of granting exclusive status, and that it uses the review system to give it exclusive status indirectly. In addition, in the case of orphan drugs, the "Rare Diseases Management Act" and the "Regulations on Examination of Items Permission and Reporting of Drugs" provide overlapping review periods, and despite the relatively long monopoly period, there seems to be no check clause to recover exclusive status in the event of a change in circumstances. Given that biopharmaceuticals are difficult to obtain patents, the lack of such provisions is a pity of domestic legislation, although granting exclusive rights may be a great motivation to induce drug development. In the United States, given that the first biosimilar also has a one-year monopoly period, it can be interpreted that domestic legislation is quite strictly limited to granting exclusive status to biopharmaceuticals. The need for improvement of the domestic system will be recognized in that it could undermine local pharmaceutical companies' willingness to develop biopharmaceuticals in the future, and in that it is also necessary to harmonize international regulations. Taking advantage of the emergence of COVID-19 as an opportunity, we look again at the problems of the domestic system that grants exclusive rights to medicines and hope that an overall revision of the relevant legislation will be made to establish a unified legal basis.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2019

Even after the Constitutional Court decided on August 23, 2012 that the provisions of abortion were constitutional, discussions on the abolition of abortion continued. The controversy about abortion is not only happening recently, but it has already existed since the time when the Penal Code was enacted, and it shares the history of modern legislation with the Republic of Korea. Legislators whom submitted amendment while insisting upon the eradication of abortion in the process of enacting criminal law at that time, presented social and economic adaptation reasons as the core reason. From then on, the abolition of abortion has been discussed during the development dictatorship, but this was not intended to guarantee women's human rights, but it was closely connected to the national policy projects of "Contraception" and "Family Planning" of the Park's dictatorship. Since then, the enactment of the Mother and Child Health Law, which restrictively allow artificial abortion, was held on February 8, 1973, in an emergency cabinet meeting that replaced the legislative power after the National Assembly was disbanded. It became effected May 10th. The reason behind the Mother and Child Health Law that included legalization of abortion in part was that the Revitalizing Reform at that time did not allow any opinion, so it seem to be it was difficult for the religious to express opposition. The "Maternal and Child Health Law" enacted in this way has been maintained through several amendments. It can be seen that the question of maintenance of abortion has been running on parallel lines without any significant difference from the time when the Penal Code was enacted. On August 23, 2012, the Constitutional Court decided that the Constitutional Opinion and the unonstitutional Opinion were 4: 4. However, it was decided by the Constitution without satisfying the quorum for unconstitutional decision of the Constitutional Court. This argument about abolition of abortion is settled for the the time being with the decision of the constitutional inconsistency of the Constitutional Court, and now, the National Assembly bears the issue of new legislation. In other words, the improved legislation must be executed until December 31, 2020, and if the previous improved legislation is not implemented, the crime of abortion (Article 269, Paragraph 1, Article 270 of the Criminal Code) Article 1 (1) will cease to be effective from 1 January 2021. Therefore, in the following, we will look into the reason of the Constitutional Court's constitutional discordance adjudication on criminal abortion(II), and how it structurally differs from the previous Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. After considering key issues arised from the constitutional discordance adjudication(III), the legislative direction and within the scope of legislative discretion in accordance with the criteria presented by the Constitutional Court We reviewed the proposed revisions to the Penal Code and the Mather and Child Health Act of Korea(IV).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.47-85
• /
• 1989

The Fundamental purpose of the Warsaw Convention was to establish uniform rules applicable to international air transportation. The emphasis on the benefits of uniformity was considered important in the beginning and continues to be important to the present. If the desire for uniformity is indeed the mortar which holds the Warsaw system together then it should be possible to agree on a worldwide liability limit. This liability limit would not be so unreasonable, that it would be impossible for nations to adhere to it. It would preclude any national supplemental compensation plan or Montreal Agreement type of requirement in any jurisdiction. The differentiation of liability limits by national requirement seems to be what is occurring. There is a plethora of mandated limits and Montreal Agreement type 'voluntary' limits. It is becoming difficult to find more than a few major States where an unmodified Warsaw Convention or Hague Protocol limitation is still in effect. If this is the real world in the 1980's, then let the treaty so reflect it. Upon reviewing the Warsaw Convention, its history and the several attempts to amend it, strengths become apparent. Hijackings of international flights have given rise to a number of lawsuits by passengers to recover damages for injuries suffered. This comment is concerned with the liability of an airline for injuries to its passengers resulting from aviation terrorism. In addition, analysis is focused on current airline security measures, particularly the pre-boarding screening system, and the duty of air carriers to prevent weapons from penetrating that system. An airline has a duty to exercise a high degree of care to protect its passengers from the threat of aviation terrorism. This duty would seemingly require the airline to exercise a high degree of care to prevent any passenger from smuggling a weapon or explosive device aboard its aircraft. In the case an unarmed hijacker who boards having no instrument in his possession with which to promote the hoax, a plaintiff-passenger would be hard-pressed to show that the airline was negligent in screening the hijacker prior to boarding. In light of the airline's duty to exercise a high degree of care to provide for the safety of all the passengers on board, an acquiescene to a hijacker's demands on the part of the air carrier could constitute a breach of duty only when it is clearly shown that the carrier's employees knew or plainly should have known that the hijacker was unarmed. A finding of willful misconduct on the part of an air carrier, which is a prerequisite to imposing unlimited liability, remains a question to be determined by a jury using the definition or standard of willful misconduct prevailing in the jurisdiction of the forum court. Through the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention, air carrier face the possibility of unlimited liability for failure to implement proper preventive precautions against terrorist. Courts, therefore, should broadly construe the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention in order to find unlimited liability for passenger injuries whenever air carrier security precautions are lacking. In this way, the courts can help ensure air carrier safety and prevention against terrorist attack. Air carriers, therefore, would have an incentive to increase, impose and maintain security precautions designed to thwart such potential terrorist attacks as in the case of Korean Air Lines Flight No.858 incident having a tremendous impact on the civil aviation community. The crash of a commercial airliner, with the attending tragic loss of life and massive destruction of property, always gives rise to shock and indignation. The general opinion is that the legal system could be sufficient, provided that the political will is there to use and apply it effectively. All agreed that the main responsibility for security has to be borne by the governments. I would like to remind all passengers that every discovery of the human spirit may be used for opposite ends; thus, aircraft can be used for air travel but also as targets of terrorism. A state that supports aviation terrorism is responsible for violation of International Aviation Law. Generally speaking, terrorism is a violation of international law. It violates the soverign rights of the states, and the human rights of the individuals. I think that aviation terrorism as becoming an ever more serious issue, has to be solved by internationally agreed and closely co-ordinated measures. We have to contribute more to the creation of a general consensus amongst all states about the need to combat the threat of aviation terrorism.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.139-207
• /
• 2022

As various state restrictions on individual freedom were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised that excessive infringements on fundamental rights were indiscriminately permitted based on the public interest of preventing infectious diseases. Therefore, the question of how to set acceptable limits of liberty restrictions on individuals has emerged. However, since the phenomenon of infections spreading to the population is only predicted statistically, how to deal with the risk of the infected individual as a subject of legal analysis has become a problem. In the absence of a theoretical framework of legal analysis of risk, the risk of infected individuals during the pandemic was not analyzed strictly, and proportionality review of infection prevention measures was often only an abstract comparison of the importance of public interest and individual rights. Therefore, this research aims to conduct a theoretical review on how risk can be conceptualized legally in a public health crisis, and to develop a theoretical framework for proportionality review of the risk of liberty-limiting measures during a pandemic. Chapter 2 analyzes the legal philosophical concepts of risk, which are the basis for liberty restrictions during a public health crisis, and applies and extends them to the pandemic. Chapter 3 reviews previous studies related to liberty restriction measures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and points out they have a limitation that specific criteria for the proportionality review of public health measures in the pandemic have not been presented. Accordingly, Chapter 3 specifies the methodological framework for proportionality review, referring to the theoretical discussion on risks in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 reviews the legitimacy of gathering restriction orders, applying the theoretical discussion in Chapter 2 and the criteria for proportionality review established in Chapter 3. In particular, Section 4 examines logic of proportionality review in judicial precedents over the ban on gathering restrictions implemented in the COVID-19 pandemic. In analyzing the precedents, the logic of proportionality review in each case is critically reviewed and reconstructed based on the theoretical framework presented in this research.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.85-116
• /
• 2013

Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency, "K-MEDI" in abbr. herein-after, is established on Apr. 9, 2012 according to the law cited in the title above for the purpose of settling medical disputes in a prompt, fair and efficient manner. Two special professional organizations are established in K-MEDI, one of them is Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Committee(hereinafter referred to as the "Mediation Committee") and the other Medical Malpractice Appraisal Board(hereinaf-ter referred to as the "Appraisal Board"), the mission of the latter is to investigate the facts concerning the disputed medical conduct and to research as to and apprai-se whether the medical conduct was negligent and whether a causal relationship exists. Each panel organized in the Mediation Committee or the Appraisal Board shall be comprised of five mediators or appraisers, including necessarily a judge or a prose-cutor respectively and any disputed case regardless of the scale, the importance or the complicacy shall be handled by a panel. As the system is not thought efficient or economic, the number of the members comprising a panel or total members com-prising the Mediation Committee or the Appraisal Board shoud be adjusted, and the process shoud be versified, including the "Rapid Process," for instance. A petition for the mediation of a medical dispute shall be rejected if the respondent fails to notify K-MEDI of his/her intention to accede to the mediation within 14days from the day on which the petition for the mediation was served(Art. 27 Cl. 7). As the option of an arbitrary decision whether the mediation proceedings shall be commenced or not given to the respondent by the clause is thought unfair, making the process unstable, and moreover, diminishing the purpose of the system established by the law cited above for solving the medical disputes, the clause shoud be amended not to allow the respondent the option of such an arbitrary deci-sion. K-MEDI shall conduct the "Program for Compensation of Medical Accidents"(Art 46) according to which unavoidable injuries caused by the medical accidents in the cour-se of childbirth and the "Advances for Damages"(Art. 47) that are the compensating moneys paid to victims in medical malpractice cases who fail to receive money at all or partly from the operator or the professional of a public health or medical institution although he/she has a final and conclusive right to be paid by them. Some operators or professionals of such institutions claim that both the programs violate their fundamental rights assured by the constitution, and that it be a justifica-tion of refusal to accede to the mediation. As any of the programs needs not to be conducted by K-MEDI, it may be a proper solution to change the conductor of the programs to avoid the unproductive controversy.

• Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.108-122
• /
• 1986

Changing concepts of health care, are stimulating the demand for health care, thereby orienting society to health care rights to such an extent that they are deemed as fundamental ones inalienable to man. Concomitantly, qualitative as well as quantative improvement is being sought in the nursing service field. Today, efforts are being made in various areas, especially to qualitatively improve nursing services. A second issue concerns proper staffing. It is important to study staffing, in as much as it continues to be the most persistent and critical problem facing hospital nursing administrators today. It involves quantity, quality, and utilization of nursing personnel. A great deal of attention has been focused on this problem since mid 1930's when nursing services began to be felt as an important segment of hospital operation representing the largest single item of hospital budgets. Traditionally, the determination and allocation of nursing personnel resources has relied heavily on gloval approaches which make use of fixed staff-to-patient ratios. It has long been recognized that these ratios are insensitive to variations between institutions and among individual patients. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to point to the urgent need for the development of methodology and criteria suited to the reality of Korea. The present research selected one place, the W Christian Hospital, and was conducted over a period 10 days from January, and nurses who were them on duty in their unit. The total num-her of patients surveyed was 1,426 and that of 354. The research represents many variables affecting the direct patient care time using the result from the direct observation method, then using a calculation method to estimate the relationship between the patients care time and selected variables in the hospital setting. The amount of direct patient care time varies with many factors, such 89 the patients age. diagnosis and time in hospital. Differences are also found from hospital, clinic to clinic, ward to ward, and even shift to shift. In this research, the calculation method of estimating the required member of nursing staff is obtained by dividing the time of productive patient care activity(with the time of patient care observed), by the sum of the productive time that each the staff can supply, i.e., 360 minutes, which is obtained by deducting the time for personal activities. The results indicate a substantial difference between the time of productive patient care observed directing and the time of the productive patient care estimated using calculating method. If we know accurately the time of the direct patient care on a shift, there required number of staff members calculated if the proper method can be determinded should be able the time of the direct patient care be estimated by the patient classification system, but this research has shown this system to be in accurate in Korea. There are differences in the recommended time of productive patient care and the required number of nursing staff depending upon which method is used. The calculated result is not very accurate, so more research is needed on the patient classification system.