• Journal of Korea Society of Industrial Information Systems
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.115-126
• /
• 2022

Under the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of Official Development Assistance(ODA) in health and medical service is emphasized more. The number of cases is expected to increase in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to provide differentiated education and training for each type of occupation as a follow-up to realize the operations management and maintenance of medical equipment supported by the ODA project. In this study, for an effective follow-up and operations management of medical equipment supported by the ODA project, the differences in educational training achievement between users and maintainers were analyzed through a t-test. As a result of this study, there were significant differences between users and maintainers of medical equipment in use and manage six types of priority management target medical equipment(Q5) and an instruction manual understanding of medical equipment(Q6). However, there was no difference in the need and purpose of education and training, satisfaction with an instructor, and the need for cross-professional communication.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Telematics and Electronics T
• /
• v.36T no.3
• /
• pp.50-55
• /
• 1999

Brushless DC Motor(BLDCM) has high efficiency. But this type of motor needs a rotor sensor which complicates the motor configuration. Rotor position sensor degrades system reliability in the severe environmental condition. In this paper, we study a controller which permits the determination of the rotor position by the back EMF to eliminate the rotor position sensor Also, since the back EMF is zero at standstill, a starting technique which permits the starting of an asynchronous motor without a sensor is described. The controller is implemented using microcontroller for minimal external component.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.81-119
• /
• 2022

Medical device market is strongly related with health care market. Public regulation in medical device market tends to be more lenient than health care market. In this market, competition law, administrative law and intellectual property law are intertwined, and thereby a variety of legal issues could be developed. Recently, dominant undertaking's abuse case was dealt with KFTC(Korea Fair Trade Commission) and Seoul High Court. The issues were whether dominant undertaking discriminated trading partners and this discrimination was anticompetitive. In this case, Seoul High Court revoked the KFTC's decision, holding that the undertaking did not harm competition, though it has dominant power in the relevant medical device market. This decision would be a meaningful precedent, not only that there have been small numbers of dominance abuse cases in Korea, but also that this case happened in medical device market. This case dealt with various issues like market definition, market power, alleged abuse and its anticompetitive effect. The court held that medical device markets are distinguished from medical device repairing market. However, the court did not clarify that medical device repairing market is a single branded market only for repairing the plaintiff's medical devices. Second, plaintiff's dominance is based on the lock-in effect, which means that hospitals could not switch devices like CT or MRI from plaintiff to other competitors. This could be supplemented from the fact that medical devices are expensive and the using period are significantly long. However market definition based on single branded market theory could be applied in rare and exceptional cases. Therefore the general application of single branded market theory might result in overestimate of market power. This type of abuse pattern requires improper condition contrary to resonable trade practice. KFTC asserted free charge for plaintiff's copy right. However, it is not clear whether the cases for free charge are general or not. Even if so, the intention and motive of providers for free charge should be proved. The main issue of anticompetitive effect was whether plaintiff raised rival's cost. Competitor's cost was increased due to plaintiff's copy right and its license fee. However the charge for license could be within the scope of fair and legal exercise of copy right. If competitors are excluded due to legal exercise of copy right or efficiency, the exclusionary abuse could not be proved.