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

• Environmental engineer
• /
• s.139
• /
• pp.35-43
• /
• 1998

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.139-175
• /
• 2017

The Assembly plenary session on December 3, 2017 passed a Product Liability Amendment bill that introduced clauses concerning consumer burden of proof and punitive damage reimbursement. More specifically, these newly approved provisions will reduce the burden of proof placed on consumers and levy triple punitive damage on suppliers. Significant increases in the number of product-liability lawsuit and the number of related insurance contracts are expected. Since military aircraft are designed for operational purpose(seeking greater combat effectiveness over greater safety) and used in high-risk environment, it is practically impossible to obtain an affordable product-liability insurance, Without having any backup plan, military aircraft manufacturers directly face all sort of liability risks under Product Liability Act, Warrant Liability Act and Non-Performance of Contract Act. The U.S. experienced similar problems when they first implemented their product-liability law in 1970s. There had been a big dispute among legal practitioner, insurance professionals and scholars concerning military aircraft manufacturer's liability. In order to settle the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has established a new precedent of Government Contractor Defense(GCD). The U.S. government also included an indemnity clause for military aircraft manufacturers in their FMS Contract with the Korean government. Likewise, Korean military aircraft manufacturers should 1) clearly understand their current position that they cannot afford expensive product-liability insurance and the cost is not accounted in the military procurement calculation, 2) estimate potential liability risks with the ongoing overseas export expansion in mind, 3) set up appropriate risk management measures through regulatory reform and policy development.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.57-127
• /
• 2008

In medical malpractice lawsuits, negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risks of harm. Thus, the essence of negligence is a breach of obligations to be attentive, and the breach of obligations to be is negligence. However, whether negligence is or not depends on time, place, litigation forms and the judge since the meaning of negligence is wavering on the basis of abstract and normative judgment. In this thesis, what is medical negligence, a breach of obligations of attention for a doctor in medical malpractice lawsuits, would be it further enacted that doctors have the responsibility to protect the patients as a subordinate duty due to a principle of faith and sincerity besides the main duty for medical contract-performance since the suit is a litigation form to be based on responsibilities of experts, especially doctors, though having factors that are non-contractual as a trait for medical treatment. Further on the concept, when the plaintiff asserts and proves a specific fact from the recent moderation of the burden of proof about medical malpractices, whether the court should find a true bill in medical malpractice actually or not has been discussed.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.423-431
• /
• 2019

This study examines the effect of the liability limitation provision (LLP) adoption on firm's cost behavior. In April 2011, Korea introduced the LLP with the purpose of improving the management efficiency by mitigating the risks caused by the manager's failure to make decisions related to business operation. However, there are concerns that the adoption of LLP may lead the manager's moral hazard, so the need for empirical research to verify the effect of the LLP adoption is emphasized. In this study, we analyze the effect of the LLP adoption empirically, focusing on the cost behavior that is affected by the manager's decision making. From the empirical result, we find that LLP adopted companies have strengthened the cost stickiness of selling, general, and administrative costs rather than non-adopted companies. This suggests that the manager of LLP adopted company makes a more active decision to consider adjusting costs in order to prepare for future recovery in sales when sales is reduced. This study presents empirical evidence to prove the policy validity of the adoption of LLP, and we expect that our results can contribute to the capital market and academia.

• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.37-61
• /
• 2014

This research is to study presenteeism of members of a organization. It factually verifies how the job stress perceived by the members affect on presenteeism and examines factors to alleviate presenteeism, in addition, tests moderating effects based on the core self-evaluations and team climate. Research results reveal, first of all, that influencing relationship which job stress increases presenteeism exists. Second, core self-evaluations control the relationship between job stress and presenteeism, which means the stronger subconscious to oneself is the more it relieve the relationship between job stress and presenteeism. Third, team climate partially contolled the relationship between job stress and presenteeism. Atmosphere with clearer performance responsibility has better controlling effect to alleviate the relationship between job stress and presenteeism. Within the team climate, subordinate variables determine the effect on the presenteeism relationship. Significances and limitations of this research was discussed at the last.

• Review of KIISC
• /
• v.18 no.5
• /
• pp.33-48
• /
• 2008

최근 은행의 소유지분한도와 설립자본금 등에 대한 정부의 금융규제 완화로 인터넷전문은행의 설립 가능성이 높아지고 있다. 그러나 우리나라의 전자금융환경은 전자금융거래법 제정에 따라 금융기관의 입증책임을 강화함으로써 금융기관의 전자금융리스크가 상대적으로 크게 증가하였다. 또한, 정보 공격기술 및 수법의 발달로 전자금융보안에 대한 위협이 지속적으로 증가하고 있다. 이외 에도 신BIS 리스크 평가에 IT운영리스크가 포함되는 등 금융환경 변화 및 정보통신 기술의 발전으로 인한 전자금융리스크가 계속 확대되고 있는 추세에 있다. 이러한 금융환경 변화와 함께 서비스채널이 인터넷에 집중되는 인터넷전문은행은 기존의 전통적인 은행과 차별되는 리스크에 추가적으로 노출될 위험성이 높다. 이러한 리스크에 대한 인식 및 대비 부재는 금융소비자가 금융권 전자금융거래에 대한 불신으로 확산되거나, 금융시장의 불안정성을 야기하는 금융사고로 이어져 자칫 국내 전자금융의 발전을 저해하는 심각한 요소가 될 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 국내 금융환경과는 차이가 있지만, 인터넷전문은행이 가져올 전자금융의 기술적 변화는 유사하다는 점에서 해외 주요국가의 인터넷전문은행 현황과 전자금융부문을 중심으로 인터넷전문은행 설립인가 사례를 살펴보고, 국내에서 인터넷전문은행 설립시 우리가 취해야 할 입장에 대해 시사점을 얻고자 하였다. 그리고 국내 전자금융 환경에서 전통적인 일반은행과 차별되거나 인터넷전문은행 고유의 특성으로 발생되는 주요 전자금융리스크를 다섯 가지로 분석하였고, 이러한 전자금융리스크를 줄이기 위한 대응방안을 모색해 보았다. 정부의 금융규제 완화는 금융자유화를 진전시켜 금융거래가 자유경쟁원리에 입각해 이루어짐에 따라 국민경제의 발전에 있어서 바람직한 결과를 얻고자 하는 것이다. 그러나 다른 한편으로 과도한 리스크에 노출 될 경우에는 금융시장의 불안정성을 야기하고 이로 인해 역 선택과 도덕적 해이를 야기 시키는 등 여러 가지의 폐해를 줄 수도 있다 이러한 폐해를 줄이기 위해서는 인터넷전문은행의 고유한 특성으로 수반되는 리스크와 상대적으로 그 중요성이 부각되는 전자금융리스크에 대한 관리 감독을 강화해야 한다. 또한 이러한 리스크 관리강화를 위한 제도적 장치는 인터넷전문은행의 자율성과 책임성을 부여하는 방향으로 이루어지는 것이 바람직하다. 인터넷전문은행이 실질적으로 다수의 금융이용자에게 다양한 혜택과 효율적인 금융서비스를 제공하기 위해서는 초기 사업계획 심사 단계에서부터 위험성이 크게 증가하는 전자금융리스크에 대해서, 적절한 관리방안 수립을 통해 예상되는 리스크를 줄이기 위한 노력이 필요하다고 생각한다. 그리고 인터넷전문은행에 대한 구체적인 인가요건이 마련되지 못한 현 상황에서, 국내 인터넷전문은행 설립이 우리나라 전자금융거래에 발전적 역할을 할 수 있도록 앞으로 더 많은 논의와 연구가 진행될 필요가 있다.

• 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.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.