• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.281-313
• /
• 2016

Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions In the past, there was a provision stipulating the same purpose. But because the Supreme Court interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if the medical treatment was not made at the additional medical instition which was opened in the another doctor,s license, multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions to another doctor's license just by the excuse of the business management and then did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, overtreatment, and commition treatment for more profits. So, the health rights of the people came to be infringed on. Accordingly, lawmakers amended the Medical Law for medical personnel not to open and to operate more than one medical institution. As the amended medical law prohibited a medical personnel to open multiple medical institution, some medical personnels insisted that the amended medical law is unconstitutional under which they could not be able to open and operate medical institutions on based on free investment and bring out the benefits of network hospitals. But the regulation to prohibit multiple institutions does not apply only to a medical personnel. Many other experts like lawyer and pharmacist can open only one office under such a restriction. If the regulation goes out of force, the procedure that multiple medical institutions should be opened and operated in the capacity as a medical corporation or a non-profit corporation does not have to be followed. And we should keep in mind that the permission for medical personels to open multiple medical institutions could lead virtually to commercial hospital. If in the nation with a very low rate of public medical service, If only a few medical personnels with capital own many medical institutions and operate commercially them, this could cause a falling-off in quality of medical service, ultimately infringe on the health rights and the life right of the people.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.143-174
• /
• 2019

Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution, and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions. By the way, virtually multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated because the Supreme Court had interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if medical activities were not performed directly at the additional medical institution which was opened under the another doctor's license. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions with another doctor's license for the purpose of the maximization of profit, and did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, over-treatment, and commission treatment. Also, realistic problems such as the infringed health rights have arisen. Accordingly, lawmakers had come to amend the Medical Law to readjust the system of opening for medical institution so that medical personnel could not open or operate more than one medical institution for any reason. For this reason, the Constitutional Court recently declared a constitutional decision through a long period of in-depth deliberation because the constitutional petition and the adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes had been filed on whether Article 33 paragraph 8 of the revised medical law is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court acknowledged the "justice of purpose" in view of the importance of public medical institutions, of the prevention from seduction of for-profit patients and from over-treatment, and of the fact that health care should not be the object of commercial transactions. Given the risk that medical personnel might be subject to outside capital, the concern that the holder of the medical institution's opening certificate and the actual operator may be separated, the principle that the human body and life should not be just a means, and the current system's inability to identify over-treatment, it also acknowledged the 'minimum infringement'. Furthermore, The Constitutional Court judged it is constitutional in compliance with the principle of restricting fundamental rights, such as 'balance of legal interests'. In this regard, legislative complements are needed in order to effectively prevent the for-profit management and the over-treatment the Constitutional Court is concerned about. In this regard, consumer groups actively support the need for legislation, and health care providers groups also agree on the need for legislation. Therefore, the legislators should respect the recent Constitutional Court's decision and in the near future complete the complementary legislation to reflect the people's interests.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.227-261
• /
• 2015

Cooperative associations are established in order to enhance the rights and the interests of their members and serve the local communities, and actually do much for the local society. And among these, consumer cooperatives are spontaneously founded, particularly in the spirit of mutual help, in order to promote the common welfare of the members. Meanwhile, because the current medical law qualifys noncommercial corporation to open medical institution, consumer cooperative and noncommercial- corporation cooperative which are established under the Cooperative Act have the right to do. However, though cooperative association should be founded for common interests of the members who are weaker parties of society, it became rapidly to be abused as means of circumvention of law. Especially as National Health Insurance Corporation stepped up the investigation and the collection of unfair profits against the hospital owned by non-medical personnel who are unable to establish a medical institution, setting up medical institutions as a roundabout way to avoid the restricts dramatically increased in number. In this study, we are going to introduce the current dualised normative system regulating the establishment of a medical cooperative association, and find a way to improve the system and make up for the week points. And we will look though the present situation about medical cooperative association's opening, operating, and closing, and review the normative and systematic improving plans.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.345-366
• /
• 2014

Because the health care or medical sector has such characteristics as publicity, professionality, and exclusivity, it cannot be left to the free market system. As a consequence, the state has restricted the establishment of medical institutions in order to protect the life and health of people. Also, the medical law has regulated to permit the establishment of medical institutions by only medical personnel and a few corporate bodies and to ban the establishment of medical institutions under disguised ownership as well as double opening of medical institutions by medical personnel. Nevertheless, there are still many cases that non-medical personnel have dominantly established medical institutions under disguised ownership of other medical personnel or nonprofit corporation. Because they are willing to recover their investment costs as soon as possible, these illegally established medical institutions are likely to make patients undergo unnecessary tests or to perform the excessive treatments and, as a result, are likely to cause infringement on the health and lives of the people. In addition, even if the misconduct is uncovered, the rate at which the costs already paid is very low and, as a result, the damages are straightly connected to the people's loss. On the other hand, there are also increasing number of cases that medical personnel or nonprofit corporations are establishing medical institutions against the medical law regulations. The examples of this illegality are also the double opening of medical institutions and the establishment of medical institutions under disguised ownership by medical personnel or nonprofit corporations. And the damages in these cases may not differ from those in the above cases. In this study, regarding medical law regulations restricting opening a medical institution, I will review the intent of those regulations, the type of violations and criminal punishments, and the possibility of recovery from unlawful profit by the National Health Insurance Act. And then, I would like to find a way for rational improvement of each.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.295-326
• /
• 2015

Under the revision of medical law on February 1, 2012, health care providers are banned from opening 2 or more medical institutions and being involved in managing the institutions. However, purpose of the legislation of the revised law is unclear and even confirmation of such purpose of the legislation based on the calculation of multiple legislative backgrounds cannot be appropriate means of achieving such purposes. This article confirms and reviews the development of revision of medical law and history of the principle of 'one person-one medical institution', and legislative purpose of the revised medical law as well as examines unconstitutionality of such revision based on limited fundamental rights by the revision, principle of clarity, and principle of the prohibition of excessive restriction.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.107-152
• /
• 2020

During the main ruling in 2019, a number of rulings that were of interest or meaningful were handed down, such as just because the complication of medical practice has occurred, there is no presumption of negligence, a case involving a fall accident in which a lot of culpability has recently been made. the death of a well-known singer that caused a sensation, a case about damages caused by MERS in 2015, which is more meaningful in connection with damages caused by COVID-19, an infectious disease that has recently hit the world, including Korea. In preaching the principles of the law, just because there has been a complication caused by medical practice, there is no presumption of negligence, 'The scope of the complication without presumption of negligence' was determined differently by the court, the court was not able to specify the criteria. Specific circumstances were presented to limit the responsibility of the medical institution while acknowledging the malpractice of the medical institution in relation to the fall accident. In relation to the scope of damages, judgment was made on issues related to the calculation of lost profits of medical malpractice; criteria for determining celebrities' daily income, criteria for determining daily income in case of receiving survivor's pension due to medical accident, an incident in which the daily income is denied if the labor capacity is already lost at the time of a medical accident. But, it seems that judgments should be made based on clearer and more reasonable standards. Related to Medical Advertise, specific logic of judgment was presented as to whether it was interpreted as being in accordance with the specific prohibition listed in Article 27 paragraph 3 of the Medical Law, which is the criterion for violation of the Medical Law, or if it constitutes a significant harm to the order of the medical market. In response to the prohibition of operating the multiple medical institutions, the Constitutional Court decided that it was constitutional because it did not violate the regulations on excessive funding, and rationally limited the scope of the prohibited 'redundant operation'. The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that even a medical institution established and operated in violation of the Medical Service Act did not make it impossible to receive all medical care benefits implemented by a medical institution under the National Health Insurance Act. Significant rulings were finalized that recognized the existence of specific protection obligations for the people of the country in the management of infectious diseases.