• 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.

• 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 Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2013.06a
• /
• pp.477-479
• /
• 2013

지금까지 해양사고 관련 조사보고서와 연구결과를 살펴보면 선박승무원의 피로가 업무수행능력에 밀접하게 영향을 미쳐서 인간과실을 유발하게하고 결국 각종 해양사고가 발생한다는 사실을 확인할 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 해양사고와 선박승무원의 피로도와 인과관계를 파악하고 분석하기위한 국내외 관련 연구동향 및 그 결과들에 대한 고찰을 하고자 하였다. 이를 기반으로 향후 선박승무원의 피로도를 관리하고 완하할 수 있는 체계적이고 합리적인 방안을 마련하고 최종적으로 충돌, 좌초 등과 같은 각종 해양사고를 예방하는데 기여하고자 한다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.235-247
• /
• 2005

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2016

While product liability has been settled as a technical term in civil law, criminal law does not commonly accept technical term for it. Not like civil law, product liability in criminal law point outs individual responsibility and disability of normative order. Meaning that causation between individual's action of violation of duty and the result of danger of legal interest or infringement of legal interest must be proved. In criminal law excluding "non-result-constituted crimes (Unternehmensdelikt)", charge of injuring, accidental infliction of injury, homicide or involuntary manslaughter is problematic in product liability. Of course, it is necessary to distinguish whether the action related to the outcome is act or ommission. Also the causal relationship between the action and the result must be proved, and the intention or negligence should be recognized. In this paper, it analyzes cases that were problematic in Korea, Germany, Spain, etc. Mainly focusing on the problems revealed in the determination of causal relationship, especially recognizing criminal liability related to products. Furthermore it is followed by the view of reviewing the cause-and-effect relationship by 2 steps, dividing natural scientific causation and the normative causal relationship. In this process, to acknowledge criminal product liability in accordance with recognizing cause-and-effect relationship, there should be general risk of specific substance causing the outcome. This only premise can be meaningful to examine the casual relationship from specific cases. As it shows in some cases and theories, it is not contradicting general law of cause and effect by determining specific causal relationship by free evaluation of evidence if a general causal relationship does not exist. Also since judge's testimony does not hold a dominant position from rule of thumb, it is possible to recognize specific causal relationship. However this paper takes position that if there is no objective and reasonably undeniable cause and effect law. If there is no objective and reasonably undeniable causal law, which is the premise for recognizing concrete causal relations, judge should sentence guilty according to "in dubio pro reo" principle. In addition, it is not allowed for the defendant to burden unproven fact by free evaluation of evidence which has an effect of shift of burden of proof.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.29-56
• /
• 2016

$F{\ddot{u}}r$ den Schadensersatzhaftung des Arztes, sog. die Arzthaftung, ist es vornehmlich vorauszusetzen: die $Sch{\ddot{a}}digungsbehandlung$ des Arztes, die Rechtswidrigkeit und das Verschulden. Zur Problematik der $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeit$ in der Stufe des Verschuldens handelt sich es in dieser Beitrag um die Kritisierung der Rechtsprechung. $F{\ddot{u}}r$ die Entscheidung des Verschulden im medizinischen Fehler kommt es darauf an, ob die Sorgfaltspflicht des Arztes verletzt wird. $Daf{\ddot{u}}r$ wird der medizinische Standard rekurriert, den die Rechtsprechung nicht aus materieller, sondern aus normativer Sicht begreift. Erstaunlich $un{\ddot{u}}bereinstimmend$ mit deren Leitsatz wird der medizinische Standard als $Ma{\ss}stab$ der Sorgfaltspflicht materiell - zutreffend nur im Ergebnis - behandelt. Die Sorgfaltspflicht in der Medizin bedeutet nicht die natur-wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse, sondern eine "Best-$M{\ddot{u}}ssen$" Pflicht. Demnach ist der Standpunkt der Rechtsprechung, wonach den med. Standard normativ bewertet und die Sorgfaltspflicht darduch wieder normativ entscheidet, nicht anders als eine $w{\ddot{o}}rtliche$ Wiederholung. Die Arzthaftung in der Rechtsprechung ist aufgrund mit der Verneinung von der Sorgfaltspflichtverletzung nicht angenommen, welche in der Tat jedoch aus verschiedenen $Gr{\ddot{u}}nden$, wie die Rechtswidrigkeit, die $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeit$ oder $Kausalit{\ddot{a}}t$, nicht angenommen. Der $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeitsbeweis$ in der Rechtsprechung entwickelt sich mit dem Beweis nach objektivem $Ma{\ss}stab$, der Vermutung nach Anschein-Beweis und der $Beschr{\ddot{a}}nkung$ mit der Wahrscheinlichkeit. Bei Letzterem $geh{\ddot{o}}rt$ es $schlie{\ss}lich$ zum medizinischen Bereich. Ein Eintritt in den fachliche Bereich im Rahmen der Beweislast stellt der Beweiserleichterung $gegen{\ddot{u}}ber$. Aus diesem Hintergrund ist ${\S}630$ h Abs. 5 BGB bemerkenswert, wonach das Vorliegen eines groben Behandlungsfehler $regelm{\ddot{a}}{\ss}ig$ zur Vermutung von der $Kausalit{\ddot{a}}tszusammenhang$ $f{\ddot{u}}hrt$. Dieser Paragraph ist inhaltlich als Beweislastumkehr angesehen. Damit ist es von Nutzen im Fall des groben Fehler, der beim - elementaren - kunstgerechten Verhalten nicht entstanden $h{\ddot{a}}tte$, wie $Hygienem{\ddot{a}}ngel$, ${\ddot{U}}berdosierung$ des Narkotikum.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.147-208
• /
• 2013

In der vorliegenden Arbeit geht es um die vergleichende Betrachtung von deutschen Urteilen OLG Munchen, Urt. v. 21. 4. 2011 - Az. 1 U 2363/10; BGH, Urt. v. 22. 5. 2012 - VI ZR 157/11) und einer Reihe von koreanischen Urteilen im Bereich des Arzthaftungsrechts. Sie behandelt die Kausalitat von Tatbestand und Rechtswidrigkeitszusammenhang in der normativen Haftungszurechung. In Korea gilt die sog. Adaquanztheorie noch entscheidend als bewertendes Zurechnungskriterium - sogar manchmal als umgangssprachliches Homonym im Sinne der Verh$\ddot{a}$ltnism$\ddot{a}{\ss}$igkeit angewendet -, die dogmengeschichtlich von Deutschland $\ddot{o}$bernommen wurde. Doch wie aus den deutschen Urteilen ersichtlich, ist sie dort schon $\ddot{u}$berwunden. Die Ergebnisse der betrffenden koreanischen Urteile sind zwar nicht unbillig, deren Urteilsbegrundungen aber theoretisch bzw. praktisch nicht $\ddot{u}$berzeugend. Nach allgemeiner Ansicht kommt es vielmehr auf den Schutzzweck an, der auch bei der Anwendung des ${\S}$ 393 KBGB gelten kann. Schlie${\ss}$lich wurde die $\ddot{U}$bertragung des praxisgerechten L$\ddot{o}$sungsansatzes in deutschen Urteilen auf rechtsvergleichende Weise dazu beitragen, die Zivilrechtspraxis in der koreanischen Justiz nachvollziehbarer machen.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2016.05a
• /
• pp.196-198
• /
• 2016

해양사고 원인의 대부분을 차지하는 인적오류 예방은 해양안전에 가장 중요하며 인적오류는 확률기반의 인적 모델을 구축하여 평가할 수 있다. 확률기반 인적 모델을 구축하기 위해 사건의 원인과 결과 사이에 연계성을 갖고 있는 통계 데이터가 필요하다. 이러한 데이터는 정부 공식통계로서 해양안전심판원에서 제공하는 재결서의 내용 분석을 통해 얻고자 하나, 측정변수가 너무 많아 계산량이 방대하다. 본 연구에서는 재결서 분석서의 원인판단에서 기준이 되는 해양안전심판원의 해양사고조사심판정보포털(이하 해심)에서 제공하는 재결서 내용의 핵심적인 내용으로 구성된 '주제어 '데이터를 활용하여 주제어에 포함된 핵심단어 분석절차를 수립하였다. 이들 단어가 구분형태별로 어떻게 분포된 상태인지 알아보고, 선박사고별로 최적으로 설명할 수 있는 단어 객체수를 검토해보고자 한다. 향후 축소된 차원으로도 해양사고 인적과실의 인과관계 설명이 가능하면, 인적모델의 측정변수를 결정하는 경우 쉽게 타당성을 확인 할 수 있어 해양안전을 위한 중요한 자료로 활용할 수 있다.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.36 no.7 s.350
• /
• pp.503-512
• /
• 1998

건강과 의료에 관심이 높아지면서 의료수요는 날로 증가하게 되었고 이에 따르는 의료분쟁 또한 증가하는 추세이다. 본의 아니게 발생한 의료사고는 의료분쟁으로 발전하게 되는데 과실과 악결과 그리고 이에 따르는 인과관계와 책임여부를 따지게 된다. 이를 규명하기 위해서는 의료인은 주의의무와 설명의무를 잘 수행했는지와 환자 또한 의무를 잘 수행했는지를 평가하게 된다. 일단 의료분쟁이 생기지 않도록 최선의 진료와 환자와의 대화가 요구되며 분쟁시 화해, 조정, 소송 등으로 해결하며 이 과정 각각에서의 준비와 대책을 세워야 할 것이다. 현재의 상황에서 언제 어디서 일어날지 모르는 의료분쟁을 방지하려면 진료기술의 숙련도를 높이고 발전하는 새로운 의학 정보를 얻는데 게으르지 말아야하며 특히 환자를 대하는데 진단, 치료과정, 치료의 후유증, 위험성에 관한 자세한 설명을 통하여 환자 스스로 결정할 수 있는 의료환경이 요구되며 가장 기본적인 의료기록부 작성에 관심을 가져야 할것이다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.49-79
• /
• 2021

Due to defendant's wrongful act by implant surgery, plaintiff has been suffered serious damages to his face and teeth, and pain caused by establishing implanted teeth. Jeonju Appellate Court sentenced to pay future medical expenses and alimony to the plaintiff in compensation for breach of duty or torts. The ruling is designed to relieve the burden of proof because it is extremely difficult for non-experts to determine whether dentists violated their 'duty of care' or whether there was a causal relationship between damages to medial treatment. It was judged that if symptoms that contributed to the patient's significant outcome occurred during or after surgery, such symptoms could be presumed to have been caused by medical negligence if indirect facts were proven to be other than medical negligence. Originally, the shifting of burden of proof in Germany, has already been developed in medical malpractice case since 1940s. In order to guarantee the patients' right, §630h German Civil Code (BGB) - presumption of negligence in the realization of controllable risk- has been also legislated. BGH (Bundesgerichtshof) has been interested in ensuring that the principle of equality between patients and doctors. So, in this study, we wanted to refer to German precedent cases to analyzing Korean medical malpractice lawsuit. In particular, the decision could be significant in that it approaches closer to allows the shifting burden of proof in drastically growing dental malpractice cases. This is clearly confirmed in the judgment of the dentist's "fault" that "if indirect facts about the symptom or occurrence are proven to be cause other than medical negligence, such symptoms can be presumed to be due to medical negligence."