• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.165-194
• /
• 2014

Der Vertrag zwischen dem Arzt und seinem Patienten wird als Auftrag im Sinne des ${\S}680$ KBGB qualifiziert. Dem Arzt erwachsen innerhalb dieses Behandlungsvertrages zahlreiche Pflichten, von denen ein gro${\ss}$er Teil durch Richterrecht geschaffen wurde. Den Arzt treffen z.B. Behandlungspflicht, Informationspflicht ${\ddot{u}}$ber die Behandlung, Aufkl${\ddot{a}}$rungspflicht ${\ddot{u}}$ber einwilligungspflichtige Umst$\ddot{a}$nde, Dokumentationspflicht, Schweigepflicht. Der Arzt ist nach Rechtsprechung und Literatur verpflichtet, den Patienten ${\ddot{u}}$ber s${\ddot{a}}$mtliche f${\ddot{u}}$r die Einwilligung wesentlichen Umst${\ddot{a}}$nde aufzukl${\ddot{a}}$ren, insbesondere ${\ddot{u}}$ber Art, Umfang, Durchf${\ddot{u}}$hrung, zu erwartende Folgen und spezifische Risiken der Ma${\ss}$nahme, die Notwendigkeit, Dringlichkeit und Eignung der Ma${\ss}$nahme zur Diagnose oder zur Therapie und uber die Erfolgsaussichten der Ma${\ss}$nahme im Hinblick auf die Diagnose oder Therapie. Mu${\ss}$ der Arzt den Patienten auf einen eigenen Behandlungsfehler hinweisen, wenn f$\ddot{u}$r ihnen Umst${\ddot{a}}$nde erkennbar sind, die die Annahme eines Behandlungsfehlers begr${\ddot{u}}$nden. Allgemeine Offenbarungspflichr bei ${\ddot{a}}$rztlichen Behandlungsfehlern wird bisher nicht diskutiert. Nach derzietigem Recht besteht keine allgemeine Offenbarungspflicht des Arztes, den Patienten unaufgefordert ${\ddot{u}}$ber einen eigenen Behandlungsfehler hinzuweisen. Aber wie im ${\S}630c$ BGB, sind f${\ddot{u}}$r den Behandelnden Umst${\ddot{a}}$nde erkennbar, die die Annahme eines Behandlungsfehlers begr${\ddot{u}}$nden, hat er den Patienten ${\ddot{u}}$ber diese auf Nachfrage oder zur Abwendung gesundheitlicher Gefahren zu informieren.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.289-310
• /
• 2000

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.37-73
• /
• 2020

Medical practice with medical adaptability is not illegal. Consent to medical practice is also not intended to exclude causes of Illegality. The patient's consent to medical practice is the exercise of the right to self-determination, and the patient's right to self-determination is take shape through the doctor's information. If a doctor violates his duty to inform, failure to inform or lack of inform constitutes an act of illegality of omission in itself. As a result, the legal interest of self-determination is violated. The patient has the right to know and make decisions on his or her own, even when it is not connected to the benefit of life and body as the subject of the body. If that infringed and lost, the non-property damage shall be recognized and the immaterial damage must be compensated. On the other hand, the violation of the duty of information does not belong to deny the compensation for physical damage. Which the legal interest violated by violation of the obligation to inform is the self-determination, and loss of opportunity of choice is recognized as ordinary damage. However, if the opportunity of choice was lost because of the infringement of the right to self-determination and the patient could not choice the better way, that dose not occur plainly bad results, under the prove of these causal relationship, that bad results could be compensated. But the unexpectable damage could not be compensated, because the physical damage is considered as the special damage due to the violation of the right of the self-determination.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2020

Under the Korean case law, physicians are obliged to disclose or inform the risk associated with a specific treatment to their patients before they perform the treatment. If they fail to do this, they are liable to compensate pain and sufferings. If the patient can establish that he or she would not have consented at all to the treatment had he or she been informed, the physicians are liable to compensate all the loss incurred by the treatment. In this article, the author examines the legitimacy of this case law from the perspective of legal doctrine as well as its practical affect on the medical practice and the furtherance of self-determination of the patient. The fundamental findings are as follows: The case law that has physicians who failed to inform treatment risk compensate pain and sufferings for the infringement of the right of self-determination seems to be a disguised and reduced compensation of all the loss based on the possible malpractice, which cannot be justified in view of the general principles of tort liability. It is necessary to adhere to the requirements of causation and imputation between the failure to inform treatment risk and the specific patient's consent to the treatment. If this causation and imputation is established, all the loss should be compensated. Otherwise, there shall be no liability. The so-called hypothetical consent defence shall be regarded as a part of causation between the failure to inform and the consent. The suggested approach can preserve the essence of physician-patient relationship and fit for the very logic of informed consent better.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.143-163
• /
• 2018

Implant procedure belongs to so called a commercialized medical treatment, its procedure is simple and clear, and the possibility of success is almost 100%. In addition, it is a selective method rather than an inevitable method for a patient's health, so the importance of liability for explanation is especially emphasized for protection of autonomous decisions by patients. Considering these characteristics, the plaintiff in the relevant case said that the contract of implant procedure has the characteristic of subcontract, and only the failure of implant itself and the violation of liability for explanation should be the defendant's fault liability. In addition, although the above procedure contract is considered as delegation rather than subcontract, whether it's the defendant's malpractice should be judged by general people's common sense rather than average people in the industry. Therefore, if all the implanted teeth were removed due to bleeding and pains, and the patient suffered from dysaesthesia during the process, the defendant's malpractice is fully proved. When the judgements of implant medical malpractice were researched, the court doesn't consider implant contract as subcontract, but it judges dentist's malpractice by whether the implant itself is successful, so it seems that the court acknowledges similar characteristics with subcontract whose purpose is completion of work to some degree. In addition, considering the detailed contents of presented medical malpractices, it seems that judging medical malpractice is based on the common sense of general people. Therefore, the argument of the plaintiff is valid when the fact the adjustment amount is relevant to the amount that the plaintiff initially claimed is considered even though the relevant case was decided to be compulsory mediation.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.39 no.2 s.259
• /
• pp.117-126
• /
• 2006

Background: The purpose of this study is to describe the characteristics of malpractice claims related to hemopneumothorax and to identify the causes and potential preventability of such claims. Material and Method: A retrospective study was performed by reviewing the records in the Lawnb website and Lx CD-rom: the records on closed malpractice claims involving hemopneumothorax were abstracted from the files available for analysis. The records were reviewed and were analysed to determine the etiology of hemopneumothorax, patient age, results of lawsuit and indemnity payment, underlying diseases, cause of death or complications, and the factors associated with a successful defense. Result: Seven closed claim involving hemopneumothorax were founded in the data for malpractice. Three claims were supreme court decision, one was a high court decision and three claims were district court decision. The most common cause of death was tension pneumothorax. Four of which resulted in indemnity payments. Conclusion: While malpractice claims involving hemopneumothorax were uncommon, they resulted in a high rate and amount of indemnity payments. Claims are more common in pediatric patients. In case of iatrogenic hemopneumothorax, post-procedural X-ray can improve patient outcome and is also associated with decreased indemnity risks. Informed consent is also important.

• Koreanishche Zeitschrift fur Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2002

본 논문의 목적은 게르만제어(예를들어 고트어, 고대북구어, 고고지독일어, 고대영어 등)에 나타나는 공명음중복 현상이 원-인도유럽어시기의 후두음에 기인함을 보이는 것이다. 고트어의 ddj/ggw, 고대북구어의 ggi/ggr, 고고지독일어 ij/uw (이상 소위 '예음화현상'으로 불림)와 그 외 게르만제어에 공통적으로 나타나는 공명음들의 중복, -rr-, -ll-, -nn-, -mm- 등은 원-게르만어시기에 각각 $\ast-ii-,\;\ast-uu-,\;\ast-rr-,\;\ast-ll-,\;\ast-nn-,\;\ast-mm-$ 등으로 소급된다. 그러나 이러한 자음군이 게르만어 이외의 다른 인도유럽어들( 대표적으로 고대인도이란어, 고전희랍어, 라전어 등)과 비교되어 원-인도유럽어시기로 소급되는 경우, 각각 $\ast-iH-,\;\ast-uH-,\;\ast-rH-,\;\ast-lH-,\;\ast-nH-,\;\ast-mH-$ 등으로 재구된다. 따라서 원-게르만어의 자음중복 현상이 후두음의 영향으로 나타난 것으로 해석되는데, 아마도 후두음이 선행하는 공명음에 동화되어 일어난 것으로 보인다. 소쉬르(1987)이래 발전해 온 후두음이론은 현재 그 이론적 틀을 확립한 상태이다. 이 이론은 고전 인도유럽어학에서 설명하지 못했던 여러 언어현상들을 설명하였고, 현대 인도유럽어 역사비교언어학에서 언어변화에 대한 필수적인 설명기재로서 사용되고 있다. 원-인도유럽어의 많은 특징들을 계승한 전형적인 다른 고대 인도유럽어들과는 달리, 시기적으로 늦은 고대 게르만어에서 음운론적 층위에서 공명음중복 현상이 후두음에 기인함은 인도유럽어 역사비교언어학에서 뿐만 아니라 게르만어학에서도 큰 의미를 갖는다고 볼 수 있다.간접으로 본동사 앞에 놓여 있어야 되는 모든 문장성분과 부문장 때문에, 즉 한국어의 전면적인 전위수식 현상으로 흔히 큰 부담/복잡함을 야기한다는 데에 그 원인이 있다. 이러한 상황에서 동사는 가능한 한 그의 문장성분을 줄이려 한다. 통사적으로 보장되어 이미 있으니 말이다. 그래서 한국어 동사의 부정성은 일종의 부담해소 대책으로 간주될 수 있을 것이다. $\ast$ 두 비교 대상에서의 핵 및 최소문장 가능성은 역시 원자가에 대한 비구속성에서 비롯된다. $\ast$ 우리 한국인이 빨리 말할 때 흔히 범하는 부정성으로 인한 인칭변화에서의 오류는 무엇보다도 정형성/제한성을 지닌 독일어 정동사가 인칭 변화하는 데 반해 한국어에서는 부정성/비구속성을 지닌 동사가 그것과는 무관한 페 기인한다. 동사의 속성을 철저히 분석함으로써 이런 과오를 극복해야 할 것이다. 한국어 동사의 부정성은 지금까지 거의 연구되지 않았다. 이 문제는 또한 지속적으로 수많은 다른 자연어들과의 비교분석을 통해 관찰돼야 할 것이다. 이 논문이 이런 연구와 언어습득을 위한 작업에 도움이 되기를 바란다.적 성분구조가 다르다는 것을 알 수 있다. 우리는 이 글이 외국어로서의 독일어를 배우는 이들에게 독일어의 관용구를 보다 올바르게 이해할 수 있는 방법론적인 토대를 제공함은 물론, (관용어) 사전에서 외국인 학습자를 고려하여 관용구를 알기 쉽게 기술하는 데 도움을 줄 수 있기를 바란다.되기 시작하면서 남황해 분지는 구조역전의 현상이 일어났으며, 동시에 발해 분지는 인리형 분지로 발달하게 되었다. 따라서, 올리고세 동안 발해 분지에서는 퇴적작용이, 남황해 분지에서는 심한 구조역전에 의한 분지변형이 동시에 일어났다 올리고세 이후 현재까지, 남황해

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.83-139
• /
• 2019

Recognition of liability for damages due to medical malpractice has been developed largely on the basis of two paths. First is the case where there is an error in a physician's medical practice and this infringes upon the legal interests of life and body, and the compensation for monetary and non-monetary damages incurred from such infringement on life and body becomes an issue. Second is the case where there is a breach of a physician's duty of explanation that results in a infringement on the patient's right of autonomous decision, and the compensation for non-monetary damages incurred from such infringement becomes an issue. However, even if there is a medical error, since it is difficult to prove the causation between the medical error of a physician and the infringement upon legal interests, the physician's responsibility for damage compensation is denied in some cases. Consider, for example, a case where a patient is already in the final stage of cancer and has a very low possibility of a complete recovery even if proper treatment is received from the physician. Here, it is not appropriate to refuse recognition of any damage compensation based on the reason that the possibility of the patient dying is very high even in the absence of a medical error. This is so because, at minimum, non-monetary damage such as psychological suffering is incurred due to the physician's medical error. In such a case, our courts recognize on an exceptional basis consolation money compensation for losing the chance to receive proper treatment. However, since the theoretical system has not been established in minutiae, what comes under the benefit and protection of the law is not clearly explicated. The recent discourse on compensating for damages incurred by patients, even when the causation between the physician's medical error and infringement upon the legal interests of life and body is denied, by establishing a new legal interest is based on the "legal principle of loss of opportunity for treatment." On what should be the substance of the new legal interest, treatment possibility argument, expectation infringement argument, considerable degree of survival possibility infringement argument and loss of opportunity for treatment argument are being put forth. It is reasonable to see the substance of this protected legal interest as "the benefit of receiving treatment appropriate to the medical standard" according to the loss of opportunity for treatment argument. The above benefit to the patient is a value inherent to human dignity that should not be infringed upon or obstructed by anyone, and at the same time, it is a basic desire regarding life and a benefit worthy of protection by law. In this regard, "the benefit of receiving treatment appropriate to the medical standard" can be made concrete as one of the general personal rights related to psychological legal interest.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.125-135
• /
• 2008

A controller who is responsible for visiter's safety makes a decision about measures for visiter safety in human-based decision making process. Many potential accidents that are caused by human error lurk in results of the process. The accidents can be decreased by changing the decision making process from human-based into technology-based. Technology-based decision making process can catch a controller's attention through data filtering, alarm filtering, and so on. So, the controller can get information on occurrence of an unforeseen accident pro-actively. The objective of this study is to suggest a concept of 3D spatial information control system for visitor flow control in multi complex building using technology-based decision making process. This study shows utilization of the system and contribution.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.209-235
• /
• 2010

According to the development of medical technology, new medical treatments have been dramatically increased as an inevitable consequence, however, it is not easy for medical workers to learn the knowledge that is necessary for new medical treatments and their additions in the medical services. Therefore, it could not be helped increasing the guidelines for applying new medical treatments, and then, the problem would come out whether to attribute the medical negligence to the doctors who did not follow the guidelines when the patient became worse because of his non-compliance. Nevertheless, there is no document to review the problem mentioned above and also no definite precedents. Thus, the civil lawful character and obligation of guidelines on the lawsuit against the medical default have been examined in this studies. The medical negligence is defined as usual doctors violate the care obligation which is demanded for them to follow when they treat patients under the proper medical standard in those days. It is resonable to assume that the matter of guidelines is to decide the level of the care obligation, that means the care which is required of the rational doctors under same circumstances, and in general, the experts' testimonies should be needed in this case. In addition, the issue comes out whether the guidelines can be the standard of the judgement of the medical negligence. Finally, I suppose, the evaluation of the issue depends on who makes the guidelines, what materials are based on, and also depends on whether there is another guidelines in the same disease, what the purpose of guidelines is to save the medical costs or to realize the appropriate medical services, in addition, it depends on how often renew the guidelines, and how wide is the usage of guidelines.