• The Korean Nurse
• /
• v.10 no.3 s.53
• /
• pp.18-22
• /
• 1971

• 월간산업보건
• /
• s.317
• /
• pp.53-56
• /
• 2014

• Korean Management Science Review
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.117-135
• /
• 1998

자동차보험의 대인배상 업무는 폭주하는 업무량에도 불구하고 담당자의 개인 능력에 의존하고 있는 실정이다. 사고발생 후 손해산정에서부터 실제적으로 배상이 이루어지기까지의 과정은 인간의 의사결정이 수없이 개입되기 때문에 시간과 비용이 많이 소요된다. 이 의사결정 과정에서는 사고 당사자 쌍방에게 가능한 여러 가지 대안들이 제시되어야 하며, 일관성 있는 판단이 내려져야 한다. 본 연구에서는 대인배상 업무를 구성하는 상해/후유장애 등급의 판정, 과실율/노동상실율 판정 및 손해산정 업무에 활용 가능한 정보기술들을 고찰한 후, 이 업무들 중 손해산정 업무를 지원하는 의사결정 지원시스템을 개발하고 그 사용 예를 제시하였다.

• 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'.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.67-100
• /
• 2017

Throughout the history of the aviation industry, from its origins in the $20^{th}$century to the present, accidents have always occurred. This paper deals with the legal liability of air traffic controllers, who represent one of the human factors causing these accidents. Though controller negligence turns out to be a main cause of the accident, Korea does not have additional judical case, since it was firstly declared that controller negligence was accountable for the air traffic accident in 1971. As such, we examine the liability of air traffic controllers as public officers. This paper looks not only at the role of air traffic controllers and pilots in accidents, but also at the applicability of controller liability in the context of Korean law. We determine that despite the high-stress environment, air traffic controllers must share in the responsibility to provide safe air navigation. Therefore, they cannot avoid legal liability.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.163-177
• /
• 2004

Wenn man das fahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt in Bezug auf ein Niveau eines Risiko der objektiv vorhandenen tatbestandlichen Erfolgsm${\"{o}}$glichkeit und auf die n${\"{o}}$tige Sorgfaltspflicht, die die T${\"{a}}$ter nimmt, um das solches Risiko abzuhalten, berucksichtigt, ergibt sich der spezielle Fall selten bei der Person, mit dem hoch-gefahrlichen Berufszweig besch${\"{a}}$ftigt ist, auf den die bestehende Allgemeine-Theorie ${\"{u}}$ber das gafahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt gleichm${\"{a}}$ssig unanwendbar ist. Bez${\"{u}}$glich des Piloten des Milit${\"{a}}$rflugzeug ergibt sich oftmals ein bestmmter Fall, die die KontroIIe des Risiko gesch${\"{a}}$ftlich uber sein eigenes pers${\"{o}}$nliches Ermessen geht, und er nimmt die Pflicht, die notwendige milit${\"{a}}$rische Zielsetzung zuerst vor allem zu ber${\"{u}}$cksichtigen, wenn auch technisch, klimatisch und umstandehalber ein normales Niveau von Risiko ${\"{u}}$bersteigt wird und zugleich ein bedenkliches hoches Risiko mit sich gebracht wird. Aus diesem Anla${\beta}$ kann man folgem, da${\beta}$ der Pilot des Milit${\"{a}}$rflugzeug ein besonderer Fall ist, auf den die Kriterien in Bezug auf das Gebiet der Regel ${\"{u}}$ber das fahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt gleichm${\"{a}}$ssig unanwendbar sind. Und weil die Vermehrung der Gefahr des Flugzeug sofort an die Vermehrung der Gefahr seines eigenen Leben angeschlossen wird und daher es eine M${\"{o}}$glichkeit gibt, da${\beta}$ der Pilot dem Resultat eines Gefahr zum ersten Opfer f${\"{a}}$llt, ist die Regelung in der Punkt der Generalpr${\"{a}}$vention gegen das fahrl${\"{a}}$ssige Begehungsdelikt sinnlos. Und auch muB die militarpolitische Punkt, die Piloten des Milit${\"{a}}$rflugzeug gem${\"{a}}$${\beta}$ dem notwendigen Ausma${\beta}$ auszubilden und das Ausma${\beta}$ zu behalten, aktuell berucksichtigt werden.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.11 no.2 s.23
• /
• pp.41-49
• /
• 2005

In general, the criminal responsibility of seaman should always be directly assumed by the seamen, according to the principle of self-incrimination. Therefore, the only possible countermeasures for the criminal responsibility of seamen may be to reduce the responsibility by using criminal procedures (ex. the warrant substance examination system, the review system of legality for confinement as much as possible. Another possibility is to reduce the penalty through the revision of the law. In detail, concerning the problem of fine, the maximum fine for oil spill accidents by criminal negligence is KRW 30,000,000 under the current Ocean Pollution Prevention Act, and when an oil spill occurs, the maximum fine tends to be levied regardless of the amount of the spilled oil; thus, it is judged that grading the fine according to the amount of spilled oil may be worth considering. Regarding P & I's payment of fine, contrary to general belief, it is only possible to make up the loss when P & I takes up the legal responsibility or acknowledges its payment. In order to solve the problem, it is possible to consider the option of introducing new collective insurance program or mutual aid system. Also, as seamen are not specialists in legal issues, the ship owners' association or the marine afficers' association need to develop some program through which they can receive systematic assistance from legal specialists including lawyers when they encounter any legal problems (ex. free legal aid programs for farmers and fishermen). Finally, it may be possible to establish enact new laws or revise the existing Act on Special cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents to insert a new section on marine accidents.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.87-115
• /
• 2024

In Korea, exposure to stress has been accompanied by mental pain in the process of achieving many growth along with rapid development, various social problems, and the frequency of emergency hospitalization is increasing.. In the case of mentally ill patients, "unwanted hospitalization" is a problem, and police and 119 paramedics try to suppress the body of mentally ill patients, and many problems are exposed This is because the constituent requirements of the provisions of emergency hospitalization under the Mental Health and Welfare Act do not reflect reality, and each institution has a different position on one mentally ill person, and emergency hospitalization does not proceed smoothly or leads to friction between related organizations, and the safety of the mentally ill or others is not secured. Emergency hospitalization is defined as "a person who finds a person who is presumed to be mentally ill and is at high risk of harming his or her health or safety or others," and if the situation is so urgent that he or she cannot afford time to go through the hospitalization procedure to decide on his or her own hospitalization, he or she can request emergency hospitalization with the consent of a doctor and a police officer. In this case, 119 paramedics are escorted to a psychiatric institution. This provision of emergency hospitalization poses many problems in the process of transferring to psychiatric institutions. If a police officer or 119 paramedics in charge of practice use "physical force" during the emergency hospitalization process, side effects will inevitably occur, and professional negligence can be a problem. Specifically, when exercising physical force, the minimum necessary physical restraint based on laws and regulations and proportional principles is required, and the lack of the duty of care of 119 paramedics or police officers under the laws and regulations will eventually be resolved by applying other laws and regulations. Accordingly, it will be an opportunity for mentally ill patients to be transferred to psychiatric institutions in a safe environment by changing the subject of emergency hospitalization provisions under the Mental Health Welfare Act, defining and prescribing the use of physical protection guards as the enforcement regulations of the Mental Health Act, setting the duty of care for 119 paramedics and police officers, and creating an environment for transportation so that mentally ill patients can be treated safely.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.285-317
• /
• 2008

To accept the doctor's professional negligence in the medical malpractice, the mistakes, by which the doctor did not foresee the production of the results in spite of the possibility of foresight and did not avoid the production of the results in spite of the possibility of avoidance, must be considered, and to decide the presence of the doctor's professional negligence, the standard must be the attention standard of general-common doctor engaged in the same business and the same function, and the medical enviornments, the conditions, the extraordinary nature of medical behavior, and etc should be considered by the general level of medical science at the time of accident. This principlel must be applied to the medical malpractice case occurred being on duty without exception. But, because of the extraordinary nature of duty work, it is difficult for any doctor to do one's best technical practice by making all diagnosis, medical treatment with all the equipment on the same plane as the ordinary times. That cannot be also expected for any doctor to do one's best technical practice in the terms of a social idea. From this point of view looking into The Precedent case related to Medical-service person being on duty sentenced by The Supreme Court, unlike the general medical malpractice case, the presence of the professional negligence in the medical malpractice occurred being on duty seems to be decided with more consideration on the general level of medical science, the medical enviornments and the conditions, particularities of medical practice at the time of accident. Especially, the extraordinary nature of medical behavior of the medical service person being on duty in the emergency room seems to be admitted compared to that of the medical service person being on duty in ward.