• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2018

After the establishment of the Korean Product Liability Act, a new clause on the burden of proof has been added and is being revised to meet the purpose of consumer protection. Article 3(2) of the new clause stipulates a provision for estimating a causal relationship when proving indirect facts to alleviate burden of proof. While consumer rights are increasing and public attention is drawn to consumer issues, problems are still emerging. In order to solve the problem, the U.S. Product Liability Act, which has strong consumer rights, was examined to describe the direction in which Korea's Product Liability Act should proceed in terms of consumer protection. The results of the comparative analysis show that the US has expanded the concept of strict liability in terms of rigorous liability, consumer dispute resolution, provable possibility, and litigation accessibility, The consumer dispute settlement system has thoroughly protected consumers by operating educational and systemic consumer ADR system. As for the possibility of proving, Korea has three provenances, and the United States has one. In the United States, where consumer lawsuits are frequent, lawsuits are more accessible than those in Korea, where the party responsible for proving is turned into a manufacturer and responsible for proving the case. This study focuses on consumer protection and provides implications for Korean product liability law.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.77-104
• /
• 2011

Professor Hasuk Song argues that every argumentum ad ignorantiam, i.e. the argument from ignorance is not fallacious, and social contexts play a crucial role to judge whether the argument is fallacious or not. I generally agree with him, but I think we cannot have help from his position without knowing what those contexts are. In this paper, I argue that the concept of burden of proof is the crucial one to judge whether ad ignorantiam is plausible or not, and then present four criterions who have the burden of proof. There is a burden of proof on one who argues first, who insists the doubtful ones, who has powers, and who thinks that a situation is not dangerous.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Industrial Safety Conference
• /
• 2003.05a
• /
• pp.43-47
• /
• 2003

현대 과학기술의 발달과 더불어 생산되는 제품들은 점차 고도화·복잡화되고, 제품의 결함 또는 제품으로 인한 사고 원인을 소비자 스스로 밝혀내는 것이 거의 불가능하게 되었다. 따라서 제조물의 안전에 대한 우선적인 입증책임을 기업에게 요구하는 제조물책임법이 선진국에서 시행되었고, 최근 소비자의 권익 보호제도 확충으로 제조물에 대한 책임이 엄격화, 광범위화 되었으며, 유럽연합과 일본의 제조물책임법을 근간으로 제정한 국내의 제조물책임법이 2002년 7월 시행되었다.(중략)

• 월간산업보건
• /
• s.284
• /
• pp.47-56
• /
• 2011

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.125-147
• /
• 2009

The Basic Environmental Policy Act (BEPA) (Law No. 4257 effective 1. August 1990) sets forth the basic policies and administrative framework for environmental preservation, leaving more detailed regulations, and emission controls to separate laws targeting air, water, and solid waste, etc. The BEPA Article 31 adopts an unprecedented strict liability standard for damages as an absolute liability. The BEPA Article 31 provides for liability as follows. If a company is alleged to have caused damage through pollution of the environment, it will be liable for damages unless it can show that the pollution did not cause damages, or that it did not actually cause pollution. If the company did cause pollution, and if the pollution is the cause for the damages in question, the company will be liable irrespective of whether it was negligent or otherwise at fault. If there are two or more companies involved in the pollution, but it is unclear which company caused the damages, all of the companies will be jointly and severally liable for the damages. In this paper, the author attempts to uncover the problems of BEPA Article 31 and then seeks desirable amendments by comparing it to the German Environmental Liability Act. First, it will be necessary to provide definitions of 'companies etc.'. Second, it will be necessary to enumerate the kinds of company facilities. Third, it will be necessary to provide exclusionary clauses on material damages. Fourth, it will be necessary to show 'presumption of cause and effect'. Fifth, it will be necessary to provide a clause on 'right to information'. Sixth, it will be necessary to provide a clause for force majeure. Seventh, it will be necessary to take measures to secure abundant liability for damages which can be caused by the owner of the facility, the potential polluter. Finally, it is appropriate that Korea now legislate an Environmental Liability Act akin to the German Environmental Liability Act.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.83
• /
• pp.46-52
• /
• 2002

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.248-269
• /
• 2002

• Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.33-35
• /
• 2020

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.65-117
• /
• 2011

This article analyzes the case (2008Da16776) which has the issue how patients have to prove causal relationship when patients claim against pharmaceutical companies alleging that patients were infected with virus due to contaminated blood products. The Supreme court held that: (1) if patients prove that they didn't have symptoms suggesting virus infection before administration of blood products, the virus infection had been confirmed after administration of blood products, and there were significant potential of contamination of the blood products with the virus, the defect in blood products or the negligence of pharmaceutical company in making blood products shall be presumed to cause the infection of the victim. (2) The pharmaceutical companies could reverse the presumption by proving the blood products were not contaminated, but the fact that the victims were treated with the blood products manufactured by other companies or had received blood transfusions is not enough to reverse the presumption. The case is the first decision whether the burden of proof about causal relationship could be reduced in pharmaceutical product liability lawsuit. Hereafter pharmaceutical product liability cases, it would be necessary to reduce the burden of proof about causal relationship in order to make substantive equality between patients and pharmaceutical companies.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.338-356
• /
• 2001