• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.12 no.5
• /
• pp.188-198
• /
• 2012

Church is one of organizations recognized not as corporation but as private association and therefore its identity and possession of properties must be confirmed by the general theories of the civil law in relation not to corporation but to private association. Different from corporation, the internal relations of private association is primarily regulated by the articles of association. When there is no article of association, ordinary resolution and provisions for incorporated association in the civil law are applied by inference. As for the debt of private association, all the members own it in a quasi-joint manner (article 275 and 278). For the last 50 years, the judicial precedents of the Supreme Court has permitted the partition of church for the Protestant church and ruled that the relationship of properties at the time of partition is the joint ownership by church members at the time of partition. This ruling is different from that of corporation and ordinary principles of law. However, a new judicial precedent (the Supreme Court, 2006. 4. 20, 2004다37775) prescribes that different from corporation, the partition of private association is not allowed. Thus, in order to settle the dispute of private association, the Supreme Court changes its traditional standpoint of allowing partition into denying it. This ruling seems to reflect the necessity of settling dispute above all.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.85-113
• /
• 2009

In this paper, the Judgment 2007DA76290 of the Korean Supreme Court was analysed in two points of the legal theory and litigation. The judgment arouses some issues of medical malpractice liability. They includes the concept of the complications and permanent lesion and the difference between them, some problems in a judge's applying the requirements for the physician's tort liability to the medical malpractice situations, the theory of obligation de moyens related with the burden of proof of the negligent conduct for a physician's liability for misperformance of contract, the influence of a patient's physical conditions on the physician's liability, the breach of duty to disclose in selecting the safer one of the treatment methods bringing about the complications or leaving the permanent lesion and so on. In the situations of the case referred to above, the plaintiff should have tried to establish that a reasonable physician in the specific situation of the case would have substituted the safer method of treatment for the method in the case. If the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing it, he or she could have recovered even the physical harm resulting from the permanent lesion brought about by the complications of the specific treatment in the case. The plaintiff failed to do so and recovered only the emotional distress which the patient suffered owing to the physician's breach of the duty to disclose. Therefore the legal malpractice of the counsel might be found in this case.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.303-354
• /
• 2013

In 2012, the major jurisdictions regarding medical cases caused the controversial issues towards medical and legal fields by getting the judgments from the Supreme Court, which admitted the exceptional admissibility on discretionary grant. By regarding the serial negligence of medical organizations as a separate tort, the sentences which made up irrationality, were spoken by the court. As a result, if the treatment was made, which did not follow the entered matters in medical documents attached, the court announced the jurisdiction that presumes the negligence, which provided the evidence of negligence; on the other hand, this gave had the burden to medical branch to take great care for medicinal treatment. To be applicable for the Principle of Trust, the doctors have to give and take the necessary information for the treatment process and symptom decisions, which also commented in the court. Thus, this case made it difficult to apply the Principle of Trust and considered all the conditions as tough ones, which eventually induced lesser faults for patients' care. Moreover, the court confirmed that the medical ads sending the emails to the members belong to the internet portal sites, are not the inducing behavior by considering that the actions are only medical ads. Furthermore, in the case of Namsu Kim, the court's interpretation was rather limited the definition for medical practice that announced limited Erweiterung der Strafbarkeit cases by lower courts. As a consequence, it is very interesting whether the Supreme Court may change their position and concerning the duty of explanation, the trend to expand the contents and scopes for the duty of explanation continues by admitting instruction explanation obligation and all the compensations and so on.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.281-313
• /
• 2013

A physician has to do his best for the better treatment of his patiensts. But, if a physician cannot remedy his patients because of the lack of hospital facilities, the lack of medical knowledge and etc., the physician must transfer his patients to another suitable hospital immediately. This is called the duty of interhospital transfer of patients. The necessity of interhospital transfer of patients is primarily ocurred in emergency medical care situations. The Supreme Court Decision 2010DO7070 delivered on April 29, 2010 is one of the important decisions related to the duty of interhospital transfer of patients. The Supreme Court ruled that there were the physician's medical malpractice and the causation between the physician's medical malpractice and the death of patient, as the physician has left the patient without due observations for 1 hour and 30 minutes after the caesarean operation inspite of mass bleeding during the operation, and has transferred the patient to another suitable hospital later. And the Supreme Court ruled that the transferring physician has to explain the situation of the patient in detail to the physician being transferred. I agree with the Supreme Court Decision. As decided by the Supreme Court, physicians will treat their patients more carefully and in case of necessity for transfer, physicians will transfer their patients with more caustion. However, the study for this issue should be continued hereafter because concrete standards are not given to lawers and physicians just by the Supreme Court Decisions itself.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.173-214
• /
• 2013

Traditionally, the Supreme Court has held that medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance should be distinguished from other medical treatment agreements which are viewed as a consummation of the autonomous free will between doctor and patient. Namely, the Supreme Court views medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance to be bound by the National Health Insurance Law with the intent to promote the applicability and comprehensiveness of the national health insurance scheme. Yet, issues of voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are triggered not only by the mistakes or moral hazard of medical care institutions but also by systemic limitations of national health insurance coverage criteria. Thus, there is a need for legislative measures that allow certain medical treatments to be included or reflected in the national health insurance coverage system so that patients may receive prompt and flexible medical treatments. To reflect such concerns, the Supreme Court made an exception for voluntary non-reimbursable treatments and developed a strict test to be applied in such cases in Supreme Court Judgment 2010 Doo 27639, 27646 (ruled on June 8, 2012 by the Grand Bench). Such judgment, however, is not a fundamental overturn of the Supreme Court's prior rulings that voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are not allowed under the law. It is only a slight revision of its previous stance for cases in which there is a lack of legislative measures to make coverage of a new yet valid medical treatment possible under the current national health insurance coverage system.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.215-244
• /
• 2015

The 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Daubert v. Merrel Dow Chemical, Inc. has changed the ways in which scientific evidence is evaluated for legal purposes. A new set of guidelines, called thereafter the Daubert Standard, that was intended to increase the judge's authority in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in the court, turns out to have increased the burden of proof on the part of plaintiffs and have also considerably influenced the outcome of policy decisions in the regulatory areas. This paper analyzes the changes made in the relationship between science and law after the introduction of the Daubert Standard, examining the epistemological differences between its proponents and opponents. The judge's dilemma as a gatekeeper, this paper argues, is not simply that of an 'amateur scientist' seeking to learn and practice scientific knowledge per se. Rather, the dilemma ought to be that of an 'legal expert,' faithful to ethos of social justice without succumbing to the practical convenience of the Daubert Standard. This paper also suggests that there is much room for STS scholars to make contributions to the use of science in legal settings by conducting in-depth studies on court cases in the broad social and political context.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2011

국제상사중재를 다루는 중재판정부의 중재인은 당사자들 간의 유효한 합의를 통하여 구속력 있는 중재판정을 행사할 권한을 가진다. 중재계약에 다른 정함이 없는 한 중재인의 판정권에 대한 결정은 중재인 자신이 내린다. 중재인은 중재합의에 의하여 그 권한이 부여된 사건에 대해서만 권한을 갖게 되나, 명시적으로 그 권한에 따라야 하는 사건 외에 당해 사건을 해결하기 위하여 처리하지 않으면 안 될 모든 문제, 즉 당해 사건과 절단될 수 없는 형태로 연계되어 있는 문제 또는 그 부차적인 조건의 문제를 해결하여야 하는 책임을 지게 된다. 중재판정부는 그 자율적인 권한범위를 규율하는 권한을 가지며, 그 권한 속에는 중재합의의 존부 또는 효력에 관한 것도 포함된다. 중재인의 판정권에 이의가 있는 당사자는 법원에 중재계약의 부존재 무효 확인을 청구할 수 있고, 중재판정이 이미 내려진 경우에는 중재판정취소의 소를 제기하거나, 집행판결에서 이의를 제기할 수 있다. 우리 중재법의 입장에서 국제중재판정의 판정기준에 대해 는 중재판정부는 당사자들이 지정한 법에 따라 중재판정을 내려야 하며, 특정 국가의 법 또는 법체계가 지정된 경우에 달리 명시되지 아니하는 한 그 국가의 국제사법이 아닌 분쟁의 실체법을 지정한 것으로 보고 있다. 국제중재의 법적 안정성, 예측가능성의 관점에서 실정법을 그 판단의 규준으로 삼는다. 한국의 국제중재의 특성은 국제성 중립성, 보편성을 보장받는 점이다. 중재인 구성원은 세계 각국의 국적을 가진 전문 중재인들이 참가하고 있다. 중재절차에 있어서도 중재인은 실체법이나 절차법, 또는 법률의 상충에 관계없이 어느 특정법률을 적용하도록 강요받지 않고 각각의 경우에 가장 적합한 법률에 따르며 중재판정부의 진행절차는 국제중재규칙에 의해 규율된다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.119-139
• /
• 2012

In the case of Banque Paribas V. Banco Santander in England for the reimbursement request of deferred payment credit by the nominated bank, the L/C-issuing bank refused to pay the proceeds at maturity because of a fraudulent transaction. The reason of refusal was that the nominated bank, Banco Santander, had no right of payment in deferred credit before its maturity if it made payment of proceeds without notice to the issuing bank, that is, payment not based upon a credit transaction but on its own account. However, in the case of ADIB V. Fortis Bank in America, the New York court made the decision that the deferred payment bank could not refuse to reimburse to the nominated bank, Fortis Bank, because of fraud. Its decision was based on the UCP600. We have analyzed and investigated the above two cases-one was an English court's decision and the other an American's. The English court's decision was made under UCP500, but the American court's was made under UCP600, which was revised in 2007. As a result, we can expect that from now on in deferred payment credit transactions, the power of the nominated bank will be greater than before, but the issuing bank will bear the risk of the beneficiary's fraud, so the issuing bank will be hesitant to issue deferred payment credit. Notwithstanding, we thought that the New York court decision would come into effect in the activation of deferred payment credit in practical trade transactions.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.34 no.10
• /
• pp.833-838
• /
• 2010

The Supreme Court in Korea judged the conduct of vessels in narrow channel was applied in order to prevent a ship collision in narrow channel, regardless of kind of a ship or weather situation, as application was not excluded as vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre without other special circumstances such as receiving the right of keep her course and speed from the other vessel, any priority was not guaranteed for vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre in regard to the other vessel following the conduct of vessel in narrow channel. In this judgement, there is concern to cause disorder to interpretation in the rule of narrow channel and responsibility between vessels. Therefore, this study aims to suggest correct interpretation about the rule concerned.

• Journal of Cadastre & Land InformatiX
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.61-78
• /
• 2017

When a boundary dispute occurs between landowners of adjoining lands, a court deals with a boundary violation on the basis of cadastral register. Boundary relocation surveying is one which reconstructs a boundary in cadastral register on actual land. Boundary relocation surveying includes most of surveyings related with the civil case such as restoration of land and demolition of building and a surveying result affects a ruling critically. However, boundary relocation surveying depends on surveying technician's knowledge and experiences and can lead to different surveying results. This study reviews legal principles of boundary relocation surveying by analyzing law practice of boundary relocation surveying which is used for solving a boundary dispute between landowners of adjoining lands and by examining related laws and Supreme Court precedents. The study seeks to contribute to consistent and reliable results of surveying by leading surveying technician to carry out a boundary relocation surveying on the basis of judicial doctrines.