• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.81-109
• /
• 2021

This paper review about the relationship between the prohibition against medical refusal and the principle of private autonomy in medical contracts. The obligation to this Prohibition in Medical Law does not restrict the liberty of contracting a medical contract. On the other hand, the prohibition limits the freedom to terminate medical contracts. Medical contracts can be terminated if the trust between doctors and patients is vanished. However certain restrictions should be placed on termination of the medical contract, because termination of the contract should not be detrimental to patients' health. According to the current medical law the medical contract is to be enforced in principle and can be revoked only with justifiable reason. At the Civil Code on Medical Contracts the freedom to terminate the medical contract is permitted, but this paper suggests the restrictions of the revocation under certain conditions. The Criminal Punishment Regulations against medical refusal should be removed. Refusal the provide medical service should be regulated by administrative sanctions under the National Health Insurance Act's obligation.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.89-115
• /
• 2021

Korea's health care delivery system is based on the Medical law and the National Health Insurance Act. In order to efficiently operate limited medical resources, it is classified to use medical institutions according to the severity of the disease. The question is whether a tertiary care hospital can terminate a medical contract for a patient, if treatment for severe diseases has already been performed at a tertiary care hospital. In the case of termination of treatment, the Korean court has both a judgment that recognizes the right to terminate and a judgment that denies the termination. Among the U.S. rulings, there are rulings that order transfer to a skilled nursing facility or nursing home or home if acute treatment is no longer needed. Considering that medical resources are limited, it is necessary to acknowledge the right to terminate the contract of the medical institution when treatment by a medical institution is completed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.139-161
• /
• 2017

In this paper, The Supreme Court of Korea 2016. 1. 28. 2015Da9769 was reviewed. In the previous case, Korean Supreme Court 2009Da17417 for the element to requirement for permission of the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, the patient's consent for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments was assumed a declaration of intention to terminate the contract. But the consent for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments corresponds not to those. The consent for medical treatments is not the juristic acts but the real acts. If the presumptive intention about these withdrawal regards as the termination of medical contract, the contract must be up to the starting the civil proceedings. According to this case, although the partial cancellation of medical contract is admitted, on the other hand medical expenses obligation ist exempted only after the final decision. At the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments the medical obligation ist exempted because of the inability to providing the medical payment, which confirmed by the final decision about the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments. Therefore the judgement of this case ist appropriate in that sense, the medical obligation ist waived only after the final decision. However that legal basis lies not at the partial cancel but at the partial inability.

• 대한치과교정학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1997.11a
• /
• pp.29-30
• /
• 1997

• 건강소식
• /
• v.16 no.10 s.167
• /
• pp.38-42
• /
• 1992

의사와 치료를 원하는 환자사이의 관계를 흔히 진료계약으로 설명한다. 의료법 등의 법률에 위반되지 않으면서 환자의 진료에 최선을 다해야 하는 진료계약에 대해 알아본다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.55-94
• /
• 2002

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.185-223
• /
• 2002

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.229-260
• /
• 2004

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2017

The Supreme Court of Korea first admitted compensation for damages caused by breach of informed consent in 1979. From then on, specific details of informed consent are shaping up and developing through court precedents. The duty of informed consent of doctor is based on article 10 of the Constitution and medical contract, and is expressly prescribed Article 12 of Framework Act on Health and Medical Services and other acts and regulations. By the way, the regulations about duty of informed consent of doctor have been established in Medical Law revised on December 20, 2016, and the revised Medical Law will be implemented on June 21, 2017. According to the revised Medical Law, medical practices subject to description and consent are operation, blood transfusion and general anesthesia that threaten to cause serious harm to human life or to the body. When performing these medical activities, the written consent must be explained and agreed upon in advance. If a doctor violates the law, he will incur fines of less than 3 million won. Comparing and viewing the revised Medical Law and existing legal principles about the duty of informed consent, we can confirm that there is a substantial difference between the two parties. Accordingly, despite the implementation of the revised medical law, the existing legal principles are unlikely to be affected. However, from the perspective of legal uniformity and stability, it is undesirable that legal judgments on the same issues differ from each other. The revised Medical Law about informed consent needs to be reformed according to existing legal principles. And, as in the case of Germany, it is desirable to include the matters concerning informed consent in the civil code.