• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.87-130
• /
• 2015

In a case in which National Health Insurance Corporation (NHIC) pays medical care expenses to a victim of a traffic accident resulting in injury or death and asks the assailant for compensation of its share in the medical care expenses, as the precedent treats the subrogation of a claim set by National Health Insurance Act the same as that set by Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it draws the range of its compensation from the range of deduction, according to the principle of deduction after offsetting and acknowledges the compensation of all medical care expenses borne by the NHIC, within the amount of compensation claimed by the victim. However, both the National Health Insurance Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act are laws that regulate social insurance, but medical care expenses in the National Health Insurance Act have a character of 'an underinsurance that fixes the ratio of indemnification,' while insurance benefit on the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act has a character of full insurance, or focuses on helping the insured that suffered an industrial accident lead a life, approximate to that in the past, regardless of the amount of damages according to its character of social insurance. Therefore, there is no reason to treat the subrogation of a claim on the National Health Insurance Act the same as that on the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Since the insured loses the right of claim acquired by the insurer by subrogation in return for receiving a receipt, there is no benefit from receiving insurance in the range. Thus, in a suit in which the insured seeks compensation for damages from the assailant, there is no room for the application of the legal principle of offset of profits and losses, and the range of subrogation of a claim or the amount of deduction from compensation should be decided by the contract between the persons directly involved or a related law. Therefore, it is not reasonable that the precedent draws the range of the NHIC's compensation from the principle of deduction after offsetting. To interpret Clause 1, Article 58 of the National Health Insurance Act that sets the range of the NHIC's compensation uniformly and systematically in combination with Clause 2 of the same article that sets the range of exemption, if the compensation is made first, it is reasonable to fix the range of the NHIC's compensation by multiplying the medical care expenses paid by the ratio of the assailant's liability. This is contrasted with the range of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's compensation which covers the total amount of the claim of the insured within the insurance benefit paid in the interpretation of Clauses 1 and 2, Article 87 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. In the meantime, there are doubts about why the profit should be deducted from the amount of compensation claimed, though it is enough for the principle of deduction after offsetting that the precedent took as the premise in judging the range of the NHIC's compensation to deduct the profit made by the victim from the amount of damages, so as to achieve the goal of not attributing profit more than the amount of damage to a victim; whether it is reasonable to attribute all the profit made by the victim to the assailant, while the damages suffered by the victim are distributed fairly; and whether there is concrete validity in actual cases. Therefore, the legal principle of the precedent concerning the range of the NHIC's compensation and the legal principle of the precedent following the principle of deduction after offsetting should be reconsidered.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.115-136
• /
• 2008

The development of the aviation technology is beyond the people's imagination. For example, with some exaggeration, If the autopilot engage upon take off, You will realize that you are on the centerline of the foggy JFK runway 13R after 15 hours with only once or twice of intervention. But the more aviation technology develops, the more responsible the pilot will be who has the final authority of the aviation safety. In the JAL 706 accident caused by unidentified reason, the pilot increased pitch abruptly and overrode the control from the autopilot. The result of this process made the death of a flight attendant and some injuries of a few passengers. The district court found the pilot not guilty at the first trial on the ground that the control override was not connected to the possibility of foresight and avoidance of the human death. The pilot was proved to be innocent through the analysis of the DFDR and ADAS that the override did not precede the unidentified pitch up motion. The judicial precedent related to aviation accidents in Korea requires pilots' absolute and extended care compared to the ordinarily prudent or reasonably careful behaviors in the vehicle and medical accidents. Although there is some controversy about the standard care, the care required in the actual operation of high tech aircraft by a pilot should include objective and standard care and be judged by analysis of the scientific data. Although the pilot maintained the unusual hi speed that doesn't have safety margin and descended under turbulence in case of the JAL 706 accident, the court negatived its relation to the cause of pitch up. Also, the override of the control after initial pitch up might have caused the possibility of the death and injury, but the court denied it. Because of this complex cause of the aviation accidents, it is important for a court to figure out the core reason of the event and casual relationship with the pilot Now, It is required that the judgement of negligence in the aviation accidents should include an objective care with scientific data from simulated circumstances(or a simulator) as the Japanese court not from the theory of vehicle's negligence.