• 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 Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2020

The current air transportation industry is facing a lot of changes not only in the quantitative growth of the market, but also in the legal aspects. For many years, the Warsaw Convention has contributed to the uniform discipline of civil carriers' legal liabilities arising from international aviation accident and has fulfilled the duties of legal guardians for the development of the air transport industry. In the process, however, the consumer interests of the air transport industry did not have much protection compared to other industries. In response, the Montreal Convention has effected for protecting the interests of aviation consumers, and there are numerous legal changes around the world to protect aviation consumers like passengers. The mental damages of airline passengers arising from the accident can also be understood as part of the protection of air consumers. Considering that the US Federal Court has dealt with the recognition of mental damages for air passengers since the early 1990s. However, Korean judicial precedent still excludes mental anguishes from the scope of damage compensation. From this point of view, it is considered academically meaningful to analyze the latest case of the US federal court. Recently, the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit in Doe v Etihad Airways applied a different interpretation against the traditional opinion: passengers could not recover for mental distress unless that mental distress resulted from a bodily injury sustained in an airplane accident. The background of the court's conclusions can be explained in many ways, among other things, unlike the Warsaw Convention the new international rule, Montreal Convention is recognizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution.

• 방재와보험
• /
• s.92
• /
• pp.25-29
• /
• 2002

• 방재와보험
• /
• s.58
• /
• pp.60-64
• /
• 1993

본 자료는 특수건물이 신체손해배상 특약부 화재보험에 가입하면 풍수재로 인한 손해를 별도의 보험료 부담없이 담보토록 확대된 1984년부터 1993년까지 9년간의 풍수재해 1,960 건을 중심으로 본 협회가 풍수재해 현황을 분석, 발간한 "풍수재 위험관리"중에서 발췌한 것이다.

• 레미콘
• /
• no.4 s.71
• /
• pp.75-88
• /
• 2002

제조물의 결함으로 인하여 소비자 또는 제3자의 생명, 신체, 재산 등에 손해가 발생했을 경우 그 제조물의 제조업자나 판매업자에게 손해배상 책임을 지게 하는 법리를 제조물책임(PL)이라하며, 제조물책임법(PL)의 시행(2002.7.1)에 따라 제조업자의 PL인지도를 제고하고, 대응활동 추진을 활성화하기 위하여 PL제도 및 대응방안 등을 집중적으로 홍보함에 회원사 여러분의 업무에 도움을 주고자 중소기업청 발표자료 중 일부 편집게재 합니다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.55-95
• /
• 2010

The meaning and application of 'lesion corporelle' in the context of a variety of mental or psychic injuries is less clear, while there is very little disagreement about its literal translation. U.S. Court decisions since Floyd allow recovery for a range of claims involving emotional injury under Article 17; in some cases there is no recovery, while in others there is full recovery, depending on the allegations and the nexus between the alleged injury and any related or accompanying physical injury. Courts are in agreement that pure emotional injury is not compensable under the Convention. Most courts agree that emotional injury is not compensable in those cases where it has resulted only in physical manifestations such as weight loss or sleeplessness. At the same time, most courts generally agree that emotional injury is compensable if it proximately flows from a physical injury. The issue as to whether the courts would associate PTSD with bodily injury as envisioned in the present Warsaw structure or even the new regime reflected in the Convention proposed by ICAO would largely depend on the extent to which courts would be ready to embrace the compelling scientific findings with regard to mental distress and its application within the term 'bodily injury'. Taken together, these points when the current under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, 'physical injury' notion of 'mental injury' is to be extended. Of course, the current terms of the Warsaw Convention have been maintaining a precedent for many countries appear to have a statue of the original purpose of the treaty does not contribute to the diffusion. Therefore, in future treaties 'bodily injury', the term 'injury', the term 'personal injury' or 'health undermined' the term should be replaced or revised.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2013

Air transport today is a means of transport that is optimized for exchanges between nations. Around the world, has experienced an increase in operating and the number of airline route expansion that has entered into the international aviation agreements in order to take advantage of the air transport efficient, but the possibility of the occurrence of air transport accidents increased. When compared to the accident of other means of transport, development of air transport accidents, not high, but it leads to catastrophe aviation accident occurs. Air Transport accident many international transportation accident than domestic transportation accident, in the event of an accident, the analysis of the legal responsibility of the shipper or the like is necessary or passenger air carrier. Judgment of the legal order of discipline of air transport accident is a classification of the type of air transport agreement. Depending on the object, air transport agreements are classified into the contract of carriage of aviation of the air passenger transportation contract. For casualties occurs, air passenger transportation accident is a need more discussion of legal discipline for this particular. Korean Commercial Code, it is possible to reflect in accordance with the actual situation of South Korea the contents of the treaty, which is utilized worldwide in international air transport, even on the system, to control land, sea, air transport and welcoming to international standards. However, Korean Commercial Code, the problem of the Montreal Convention has occurred as it is primarily reflecting the Montreal Convention. As a cause of liability for damages, under the Commercial Code of Korea and the contents of the treaty precedent is reflected, the concept of accident is necessary definition of the exact concept for damages of passengers in particular. Cause of personal injury or death of passengers, in the event of an accident to the "working for the elevation" or "aircraft" on, the Montreal Convention is the mother method of Korea Commercial Code, liability for damages of air carrier defines. The Montreal Convention such, continue to be a matter of debate so far in connection with the scope of "working for the lifting of" the concepts defined in the same way from Warsaw Convention "accident". In addition, it is discussed and put to see if you can be included mental damage passenger suffered in air transport in the "personal injury" in the damage of the passenger is in the range of damages. If the operation of aircraft, injury accident, in certain circumstances, compensation for mental damage is possible, in the same way as serious injury, mental damage caused by aviation accidents not be able to live a normal life for the victim it is damage to make. So it is necessary to interpret and what is included in the injury to the body in Korea Commercial Code and related conventions, non-economic damage of passengers, clearly demonstrated from the point of view of prevention of abuse of litigation and reasonable protection of air carrier it must compensate only psychological damage that can be. Since the compensation of delay damages, Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention, Korea Commercial Code, there are provisions of the liability of the air carrier due to the delayed arrival of passenger and baggage, but you do not have a reference to delayed arrival, the concept of delay arrangement is necessary. The strict interpretation of the concept of delayed arrival, because it may interfere with safe operation of the air carrier, within the time agreed to the airport of arrival that is described in the aviation contract of carriage of passenger baggage, or, these agreements I think the absence is to be defined as when it is possible to consider this situation, requests the carrier in good faith is not Indian or arrive within a reasonable time is correct. The loss of passenger, according to the international passenger Conditions of Carriage of Korean Air, in addition to the cases prescribed by law and other treaties, loss of airline contracts, resulting in passengers from a service that Korean Air and air transport in question do damage was is, that the fact that Korean Air does not bear the responsibility as a general rule, that was caused by the negligence or intentional negligence of Korean Air is proof, negligence of passengers of the damage has not been interposed bear responsibility only when it is found. It is a clause in the case of damage that is not mandated by law or treaty, and responsible only if the negligence of the airline side has been demonstrated, but of the term negligence "for" intentional or negligent "Korean Air's Terms" I considered judgment of compatibility is required, and that gross negligence is appropriate. The "Korean Air international passenger Conditions of Carriage", airlines about the damage such as electronic equipment that is included in the checked baggage of passengers does not bear the responsibility, but the loss of baggage, international to arrive or depart the U.S. it is not the case of transportation. Therefore, it is intended to discriminate unfairly passengers of international flights arriving or departure to another country passengers of international flights arriving or departure, the United States, airlines will bear the responsibility for the goods in the same way as the contents of the treaty it should be revised in the direction.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.47-82
• /
• 2019

Inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation, in the process, will inevitably lead to various legal disputes, one of which is the issue of compensation for personal injury. The purpose of this study is to present the standards of settlement of disputes between the residents of North and South Korea by examining the North Korean compensation law on the calculation of damages due to personal injury and comparing it with the South Korean compensation law. Understanding the North Korean compensation law is a critical and urgent task, as exchanges and cooperation between the two Koreas are expected to increase in the future. For the South Korean compensation law does not have specific provisions on the estimation of damages, the specific methods and standards for estimating damages are determined by court precedents. The South Korean courts categorize the damages caused by personal injury into active property damages, passive property damages and emotional distress damages and calculate the amount of each damages. On the other hand, the North Korean Compensation for Damage Act stipulates the categories of damage by dividing the cases of personal injury into 1) infringement of health(§41), 2) disability due to infringement of health(§42), and 3) death resulting from human infringement(§44). In addition, the North Korea Compensation for Damage Act specifies the calculation of compensation for damages(§43, §51). Furthermore, South Korea widely acknowledges emotional distress damages for personal injury, whereas North Korea does not recognize emotional distress damages in principle.

• The Journal of the Korean life insurance medical association
• /
• v.25
• /
• pp.79-102
• /
• 2006

1. 서론 o 연구배경 05년 4월에는 생손보 공통의 신체장해분류표 개정시행 및 표준약관개정이 있었으며 05년도까지는 어떤 형태로든지 장애인차별금지법안이 입법화될 것이라고 한다. 따라서 장애인의 보험이 거절되었을 경우 입증책임은 보험회사에 있게 될 것이다. 생명보험업계로서는 공 통 인수지침마련을 통해 민원소지 최소화를 위해 노력했으나 오히려 장애인차별이라는 비난을 받게 되었다. 이에 개정신체장해분류표에 대한 연구 및 언더라이팅적 시각에서의 개선방안 모색이 필요하게 되었다. o 연구방향 신체장해제도는 보험회사 뿐만 아니라 각종 법규 및 정부기관에서 다양하게 운영되고 있다. 이들에 대한 연구 및 특히 보험청약시에 주로 접하게 되는 복지장애(장애인복지법하(下))에 대해 주로 연구하여 이와 개정신체장해분류표를 비교분석 하도록 한다. 그리고 개정신체장해분류표에서 향후에 발생가능한 문제에 대해 업계경험을 토대로 개선점을 강구하도록 한다. 2. 신체장애등급의 이론적 배경 o 신체장애제도의 종류 o 국내법상의 신체장애제도 o 신체장애평가제도 근거법규 o 해외주요국의 신체장애평가제도 3. 우리나라의 장애보장제도 현황 o 국가장애등급과 생명보험 실제지급경험의 연구를 통해 신체장해비교를 통해 장애1급의 주요원인이 질병원인에 있으며 재해원인은 상대적으로 낮은 수준을 보이고 있다. 특히 질병장애의 경우 05년 3월까지 등록된 복지장애에서보다 생명 보험 지급경험에서 훨씬 높은 비율을 나타내고 있음이 05년$1{\sim}5$월 생명보험 장애1급 지급 건의 연구결과 나타났다. 문제는 복지장애와 생명보험약관상의 신체장애의 평가기준이 상이하여 등급간 정도와 신체장해물의 정도의 비교에 표준화된 이론적 근거나 tool이 없다는 것이다. 이에 대해 외국사의 경우에는 장애의 결과보다는 원인질병에 의거하여 그에 따른 후유장애로 나뉘어 인수지침을 두고 있다. o 우리나라의 신체장해 평가방법을 보면 각종 법규나 정부기관에서 사용하는 평가방법을 포함하여 대략 신체장애등급방식과 신체장해율 방식으로 나눌 수 있다. 복지장애는 독자적인 신체장애등급방식으로 장애를 평가하고 있으며 생명보험약관은 05넌4월개정시부터 손해보험의 장기보험에서 기(旣)시행중인 신체장해율방식을 쓰고 있으며 이는 미국의 A.M.A법에 근간을 두고 있다. 상호간의 판정기준이 상이한 상황에서 언더라이팅은 장애의 원인은 고려되지 않은 결과물에 해당되는 신체장해율표만 가지고 인수지침을 세우기 어려우므로 A.M.A법에 대한 연구가 필요할 것이다. 또한 손해보험경험에서 이미 문제로 대두되고 있는 한시장해와 기타 제도적 개선방향을 모색해야 할 것이다. 4. 결론 우리나라에서 운영되고 있는 장해는 원인에 대한 고려나 선천성과 후천성의 구별이 없이 운영되고 있다. 또한 신체장해 평가기준이 너무나 다양하게 운영되고 있어서 기초통계축적에도 어려움이 많다. 보험회사의 사회적 책임의 한계도 존재한다. 따라서 장해의 결과보다는 원인에 대한 연구가 더욱 필요할 것이며 이에 대한 국민의 관심 및 공감대형성이 필요할 것이다.

• 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.