• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.133-170
• /
• 2022

Supreme Court 2018Da228486, on July 29, 2021, ruled Article 750 of the Civil Act as the basis for liability for damages due to the violation of the supervisory duty of the responsible mental patient. This judgment recognizes that the legal guardian is liable for tort due to neglect of the responsibility of supervision under Article 750 of the Civil Act because the duty of protection bears the duty of supervision over the mental patient under the law. However, unlike the case of Article 755 Paragraph 1, which explicitly requires a legal obligation to supervise, Article 750 only stipulates general tort liability. Thus, to admit tort liability under Article 750, it is not necessary that the basis of the supervisory duty by the law. In this case, the supervisory duty may also be acknowledged according to customary law or sound reasoning. The duty of supervision of a legal guardian is not a general duty to prevent all consequences of the behavior of a mental patient but a duty within a reasonably limited scope. Therefore, the responsibility of the burden of care should be acknowledged only when the objective circumstances in which it is appropriate to hold the legal guardian for the acts of the mental patient are admitted. Under the Act on the improvement of mental health and the support for welfare services for mental patients, a legal guardian cannot even be granted the supervisory duty to prevent the mental patient from harming others.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.146-157
• /
• 2006

Causal relationship means what relations the result occurred have with a fact as a reason. In general, a formular that no result exists without reasons is used for the method to confirm existence and inexistence of causal relationship. Problematic causal relationships in Private Law are reparations (Article No. 393 of Private Law) due to debt nonfulfillment and reparation due to tort (Application of Article No. 393 by Article No. 750, and No. 763 of Private Law). The purpose pursued by reparation system in private law is to promote equal burden of damages, and the range of reparation at this time is decided by the range of damage and the range of damage is decided by the principle of causal relationship. That the causal relationship theory fairly causes confusion by treating one problem and the other problem as the same thing, instead of dividing them according to the purpose of protection presented by the law is a reason of the criticism from different views.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.131-157
• /
• 2015

NHIS claimed for damages to doctors that by doing the treatment breaching medical insurance criteria caused by doctors, NHIS paid for medicine cost to pharmacy; as a result, the doctors caused the tort to NHIS. Following consecutive rulings afterwards, NHIS also argued that the medicine cost violating medical law or medical treatment expense paid to medical organizations are both the tort in civil law. NHIS claimed for all the damages, and the Supreme Court confirmed this judgment. However, within our national health insurance system, the subject of insurance payment is NHIS and the subject of medical treatment expense are also NHIS since the treatment expense is also insurance payment by asking the treatment to medical organizations. Further, national health insurance law is not made to control the violation of medical treatment cases; therefore, the breach of medical law cannot be covered by illegality of tort in civil law regarding NHIS. If that is the case, in the case that if the patients are treated according to treatment criteria via the doctors delegated the doctors' permission by Health and Welfare minister, NHIS acquired the benefits to remove the duty to give treatment payment to doctors in civil law; thus, even though the doctors have breached the medical law, NHIS does not have any damages. The fact that supreme court confirmed the ruling that the treatment is the tort in civil law towards NHIS is the judgment not counting the benefits of insurance payment as the subject but only considering the fact that NHIS paid to the doctors and this ruling have gone against the principle under civil code section 750. If the doctors have breached the medical law, the case should be sanctioned by medical law not national health insurance law, and the ruling of supreme court is assumed that they have confused both with the principle of national health insurance law and civil law.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.14 no.5
• /
• pp.391-402
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this research, paying attention on the exaggerated advertisements on online sport media, was to investigate the illegality of the article typed advertisement of online sport media. The results of this research were as follows; First, the article typed advertisements are the assets of the media company as other articles or advertisements. Second, the persons of capacity to act are defined with sport online media, advertiser and customers. Third, the exaggerated advertisements of the sport online media and advertiser are regulated by Korean legal system. Fourth, when victims occurred, the rights of claim for damages could be activated based on the article 750 of the Korean Civil Law. Fifth, the liability for damages may be imposed by Korean Civil Law to the sport online media restrictively.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.3-43
• /
• 2018

Auf die ganze Welt macht unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(sog.Drohnen) in vielen Bereichen rasch Fortschritte und Anwendungen gezeigt. Nachdem ferngesteuerte Drohnen $urspr{\ddot{u}}nglich$ $prim{\ddot{a}}r$ $f{\ddot{u}}r$ $milit{\ddot{a}}rische$ Zwecke entwickelt wurden, $erh{\ddot{o}}cht$ sich derzeit ihre zivile Nutzung sowohl im Freizeit- als auch im Dienstleistungsbereich(Paketdrohnen, Drohnen-taxi) stetig. Mit der vermehrten Drohnennutzung steigen allerdings auch die damit verbundenen Risiken und Herausforderungen. In Zusammenhang damit stellt sich dann die Frage, ob $gegenw{\ddot{a}}rtige$ Vorschriften im Bereich von Luftrecht zurecht gekommen sind. Es sieht sich gerade der zwei Schwerpunkt $gegen{\ddot{u}}ber$. Erstens kann $Passagierebef{\ddot{o}}rderung$ mit unbemanntem Luftfahrzeug(mehr als 150kg) im $gegenw{\ddot{a}}ritigen$ Luftrecht keine Anwendung finden. Denn das kor. Luftsicherheitsgesetz und sein Durchsetzungsverordnung definieren die Terminologie von unbemannten Luftfahrzeugen und unbemannten $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ als "wenn eine Person nicht an Bord geht und ferngesteuert wird". Also soll Drohne nach dieser gesetzlichen Definition nur "ohne Person" geflogen werden. Das besagt ohne Piloten und ohne Passagiere. Zweitens ist unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(weniger als 150kg) nicht auf Handelsgesetz anzuwenden, auf das ${\ddot{u}}ber$ Anspruchsgrundlage und Zurechnungsnorm des gewerblichen Luftverkehr geregelt ist. Der unbemannte Luftfahrzeuglieferdienst bringt nicht nur die Gefahr einer $Besch{\ddot{a}}digung$ des Frachtguts mit sich, sondern auch die Gefahr von $Bodensch{\ddot{a}}den$ durch Dritte. Gemäß ${\S}$ 896 des Handelsgesetzes ist aber die Anwendung von unbemannte $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$(weniger als 150kg) $hierf{\ddot{u}}r$ begrenzt, weil unbemannt $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ $einschl{\ddot{a}}gig$ in Ultralight $Flugger{\ddot{a}}t$ ist, die im Handelsgesetz ausschließlich besteht. Technische Fortschritt und die dadurch $erm{\ddot{o}}glichten$ kommerziellen Anwendungen werden die Nachfrage nach unbemannter $Flugger{\ddot{a}}te$ wecken. Die Umsetzung der $bez{\ddot{u}}glichen$ Vorschriften sollte auch diese Entwicklung aktiv begleitet und $fr{\ddot{u}}hzeitig$ kommuniziert und erarbeitet werden, damit Hersteller und Nutzer $fr{\ddot{u}}hzeitig$ Planungssicherheit haben.