• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.49-79
• /
• 2021

Due to defendant's wrongful act by implant surgery, plaintiff has been suffered serious damages to his face and teeth, and pain caused by establishing implanted teeth. Jeonju Appellate Court sentenced to pay future medical expenses and alimony to the plaintiff in compensation for breach of duty or torts. The ruling is designed to relieve the burden of proof because it is extremely difficult for non-experts to determine whether dentists violated their 'duty of care' or whether there was a causal relationship between damages to medial treatment. It was judged that if symptoms that contributed to the patient's significant outcome occurred during or after surgery, such symptoms could be presumed to have been caused by medical negligence if indirect facts were proven to be other than medical negligence. Originally, the shifting of burden of proof in Germany, has already been developed in medical malpractice case since 1940s. In order to guarantee the patients' right, §630h German Civil Code (BGB) - presumption of negligence in the realization of controllable risk- has been also legislated. BGH (Bundesgerichtshof) has been interested in ensuring that the principle of equality between patients and doctors. So, in this study, we wanted to refer to German precedent cases to analyzing Korean medical malpractice lawsuit. In particular, the decision could be significant in that it approaches closer to allows the shifting burden of proof in drastically growing dental malpractice cases. This is clearly confirmed in the judgment of the dentist's "fault" that "if indirect facts about the symptom or occurrence are proven to be cause other than medical negligence, such symptoms can be presumed to be due to medical negligence."

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.123-163
• /
• 2014

As results of analyzing judicial precedents about infection in hospitals in connection with mistakes and causality in medical litigations shows that the Mitigation of Law Principles To Prove responsibility in medical litigation has not been able to play its role compared to its intended purposes. And Major sentiment from those judgments is that a mistake can't be proved only by the fact that certain infection in hospital occurred in connection with hospital infection. Therefore, the number of indirect facts to deny estimation is overwhelmingly high. Like this, especially for hospital infection which is difficult to prove indirect facts themselves to estimate mistake, major sentiment from those judgments have a problem that impute sharing of losses caused by hospital infection to patient. In accordance with the Principles of equitable and proper sharing of losses, it's required to prepare legal interpretation and theoretical methods to largely mitigate patient's responsibility to prove medical mistakes compared to other medical litigations in connection with existing Mitigation of Law Principles To Prove responsibility and conventional theory of estimation. In connection with this, the results of review that duty of safety management in hospital infection cases can be the base of conversion of proving responsibility, the duty that prevent hospital infection, corresponding the duty of safety management in hospital infection is not conventional duty of safety management based on duty of good faith but secondary obligation of medical contract. The breach of duty preventing hospital infection is the violation of medical contract, but there is no logical necessity that convert proving responsibility from the obligation of contract itself. Therefore, the duty of preventing hospital infection from the obligation of medical contract, corresponding the duty of safety management in hospital infection cases cannot be the base of conversion of proving responsibility alone. But, it's still required to conversion of proving responsibility in hospital infection, we need further studies on cases of Germany which applies legal estimation of proving responsibilities in hospital infection.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.29-56
• /
• 2016

$F{\ddot{u}}r$ den Schadensersatzhaftung des Arztes, sog. die Arzthaftung, ist es vornehmlich vorauszusetzen: die $Sch{\ddot{a}}digungsbehandlung$ des Arztes, die Rechtswidrigkeit und das Verschulden. Zur Problematik der $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeit$ in der Stufe des Verschuldens handelt sich es in dieser Beitrag um die Kritisierung der Rechtsprechung. $F{\ddot{u}}r$ die Entscheidung des Verschulden im medizinischen Fehler kommt es darauf an, ob die Sorgfaltspflicht des Arztes verletzt wird. $Daf{\ddot{u}}r$ wird der medizinische Standard rekurriert, den die Rechtsprechung nicht aus materieller, sondern aus normativer Sicht begreift. Erstaunlich $un{\ddot{u}}bereinstimmend$ mit deren Leitsatz wird der medizinische Standard als $Ma{\ss}stab$ der Sorgfaltspflicht materiell - zutreffend nur im Ergebnis - behandelt. Die Sorgfaltspflicht in der Medizin bedeutet nicht die natur-wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse, sondern eine "Best-$M{\ddot{u}}ssen$" Pflicht. Demnach ist der Standpunkt der Rechtsprechung, wonach den med. Standard normativ bewertet und die Sorgfaltspflicht darduch wieder normativ entscheidet, nicht anders als eine $w{\ddot{o}}rtliche$ Wiederholung. Die Arzthaftung in der Rechtsprechung ist aufgrund mit der Verneinung von der Sorgfaltspflichtverletzung nicht angenommen, welche in der Tat jedoch aus verschiedenen $Gr{\ddot{u}}nden$, wie die Rechtswidrigkeit, die $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeit$ oder $Kausalit{\ddot{a}}t$, nicht angenommen. Der $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeitsbeweis$ in der Rechtsprechung entwickelt sich mit dem Beweis nach objektivem $Ma{\ss}stab$, der Vermutung nach Anschein-Beweis und der $Beschr{\ddot{a}}nkung$ mit der Wahrscheinlichkeit. Bei Letzterem $geh{\ddot{o}}rt$ es $schlie{\ss}lich$ zum medizinischen Bereich. Ein Eintritt in den fachliche Bereich im Rahmen der Beweislast stellt der Beweiserleichterung $gegen{\ddot{u}}ber$. Aus diesem Hintergrund ist ${\S}630$ h Abs. 5 BGB bemerkenswert, wonach das Vorliegen eines groben Behandlungsfehler $regelm{\ddot{a}}{\ss}ig$ zur Vermutung von der $Kausalit{\ddot{a}}tszusammenhang$ $f{\ddot{u}}hrt$. Dieser Paragraph ist inhaltlich als Beweislastumkehr angesehen. Damit ist es von Nutzen im Fall des groben Fehler, der beim - elementaren - kunstgerechten Verhalten nicht entstanden $h{\ddot{a}}tte$, wie $Hygienem{\ddot{a}}ngel$, ${\ddot{U}}berdosierung$ des Narkotikum.

• 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.

• Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
• /
• v.49 no.2
• /
• pp.80-96
• /
• 2016

Recently, a series of lawsuits were filed in Korea claiming tort liability against tobacco companies. The Supreme Court has already issued decisions in some cases, while others are still pending. The primary issue in these cases is whether the epidemiological evidence submitted by the plaintiffs clearly proves the causal relationship between smoking and disease as required by civil law. Proving causation is difficult in tobacco lawsuits because factors other than smoking are involved in the development of a disease, and also because of the lapse of time between smoking and the manifestation of the disease. The Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision, 2011Da22092, April 10, 2014) has imposed some limitations on using epidemiological evidence to prove causation in tobacco lawsuits filed by smokers and their family members, but these limitations should be reconsidered. First, the Court stated that a disease can be categorized as specific or non-specific, and for each disease type, causation can be proven by different types of evidence. However, the concept of specific diseases is not compatible with multifactor theory, which is generally accepted in the field of public health. Second, when the epidemiological association between the disease and the risk factor is proven to be significant, imposing additional burdens of proof on the plaintiff may considerably limit the plaintiff's right to recovery, but the Court required the plaintiffs to provide additional information such as health condition and lifestyle. Third, the Supreme Court is not giving greater weight to the evidential value of epidemiological study results because the Court focuses on the fact that these studies were group-level, not individual-level. However, group-level studies could still offer valuable information about individual members of the group, e.g., probability of causation.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.207-254
• /
• 2018

The major court rulings delivered in 2017 include the ruling that separated the legal character of denture production agreement signed together with medical care agreement and found a subcontracting dimension in the former, and the ruling that overcame the limitations of the theory of entire appearance of a fetus as discussed in civil law by using the legal principle of insurance which suggests that unborn child insurance takes effect after the contract is signed and the first installment of the premium is paid in. As more court rulings find the medical specialists responsible for accidents and injuries from drugs, some argue that medication counseling by the druggist who makes and dispenses drugs should be upgraded. And with respect to a court ruling that denied the hospital's responsibility for an infection-involving accident even if there were no records on specific measures taken in infection management, some criticized the court for being too conservative in recognizing responsibilities. And with respect to infectious disease management, some criticized the court for its interpretation and application of the facts in the direction of denying the negligence. In addition, some claimed that it is necessary to establish institutional system for hospital infection control and its aid for victims, and to improve the system including the reversal of the burden of proof given the special nature of hospital infections. A number of rulings on the duty to disclose included the one which stated that the specific matter did not require a doctor's explanation as it was explained or the specific medical service would have been performed even if no explanation had been given. There was a greatly controversial ruling over the scope of indemnification, which accepted the occurrence of multiple scars and deformation as disorders while regarding breast as a thoracic organ. And a Supreme Court ruling over interpreting Medical Service Act was criticized as overstepping the boundary allowed in the law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.163-207
• /
• 2020

Korea has been positioned as the leading country in the industry of clinical trials as the clinical trail of Korea has developed for the recent 10 years. Clinical trial has plays a significant role in the development of medicine and the increase of curability. However, it has inevitable risk as the purpose of the clinical trial is to prove the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. Therefore, the clinical trial should be controlled properly to protect the health of the subjects of clinical trial and to ensure that they exercise a right of self-determination. In this context, the fiduciary duties of doctors who conduct clinical trials is especially important. The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the relevant regulations define several duties of doctors who conduct clinical trials. In particular, the duty to protection of subjects and the duty to provide information constitute the main fiduciary duties to the subjects. Those are essentially similar to the fiduciary duties of doctors in usual treatment from the perspective of the values promoted by the law and the content of the law. Nonetheless, clinical trials put more emphasis on the duties to provide explanation than in usual treatment. Further research and study are required to establish the concrete standard for the duty of care. However, if the blind pursuit of higher standards for the duty of care or to pass the burden of proof to doctors may result in disrupting the development of clinical trials, limiting the accessibility of patients to new treatment and even violating the principle of sharing damage equally and properly. In addition to these duties, the laws of clinical trials define several duties of doctors. Any decision on whether the violation of the law constitutes the violation of the fiduciary duty and justifies the demand for compensation of damages should be based on whether relevant law aims to protect the safety and benefit of subjects, even if in an incidental way, the degree to which such violation breaches the values promoted by the law and the concrete of violation of benefit of law, the detailed acts of such violation. The legal interests of the subjects can be protected effectively by guaranteeing compliance with those duties and establishing judicial and administrative controls to ensure that the benefit of subjects are protected properly in individual cases.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.42-53
• /
• 2012

Lawsuits related to defects in apartment buildings involve a range of legal issues, based on which the current subjective judgment system has been established. This study aims to organize the judgment system by stage of lawsuit from a legal perspective by reviewing the factors dealt with in precedent research. The main issues at hand include assignment of obligation, the day on which the computation of exclusion period begins and the day on which the defect repair is completed. The rationality of the current subjective judgment system could be determined by reviewing the recent cases. Based on the findings of the review, the following are suggestions for improvements and complements of the system. First, the process of assignment of obligation should be systemized, and the guarantee insurance system that provides a warranty deed should be improved as well. In addition, improvements and systemization should be made to clarify the responsibilities for any defect arising from the agreements that are not stipulated on the contract, computation of abatement rate of compensation and the system by which the responsibility for the defects is completed when residents acquire ownership from rental status.