• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.239-262
• /
• 2014

The conventional medical appraisal which was done in the process of medical lawsuit was requested from the court to the designated hospital and was delivered as a pattern of one question and one answer in each. However, the comprehensiveness of medical appraisal which was pursued, for example, in Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency, could be guaranteed in terms of in-depth medical analysis as well as the broader capacity of the causality estimation besides. The comprehensiveness of appraisal would also include how well organized hospital system of medical care is and how well correlated job system among medical staffs, when medical dispute was happened at the hospital. This comprehensiveness will exert a big contribution on making a demonstrative medical care to prevent from the medical dispute and it could achieve the national plan of building the patient safety net which is effective in restoring the worsened quality of contemporary medical service. Therefore, the comprehensiveness of medical appraisal has to be designed to go forward interdisciplinary fused speciality rather than one division of medicine, which is also aiming at the reliable and consistent appraisal with the supreme dignity from one window. In addition to that, the objective and concrete frame of comprehensive appraisal under the computed connection has to be deliberated to make itself possible in collaboration with positive participation of medical community. The comprehensiveness of medical appraisal would serve to expand not only the capacity of speciality but also the ability of influence on a restorative justice, so that it give effect to an increased number of mediation and arbitration rather than medical lawsuit as well as a decreased number of the social cost and social conflict.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.103-125
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews the EU Case, Claudia Wegener v. Royal Air Maroc SA [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:361, Case C-537/17. It analyzes some issues as to Wegener case by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, entitled scope, provides: "this Regulation shall apply: (a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies; (b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier." ECJ held that must be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies to a passenger transport effected under a single booking and comprising, between its departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and its arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State, a scheduled stopover outside the European Union with a change of aircraft. According to the Court, it is apparent from the regulation and case-law that when, as in the present case, two (or more) flights are booked as a single unit, those flights constitute a whole for the purposes of the right to compensation for passengers. Those flights must therefore be considered as one and the same connecting flight.