• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2018

By examining care from a normative perspective projected in the Constitution of South Korea, this paper attempts to assess care from the standpoint of justice and establish the status of care as a concrete political value. The point that this paper focuses on in the Constitution is about the "human worth and dignity" and "right to pursue happiness" clauses of the Article 10 at the beginning of Chapter II which defines the rights and duties of citizens. The clauses of "human worth and dignity" and the "right to pursue happiness" are generally interpreted as the highest values of the constitutional order. While exploring the human dignity and the pursuit of happiness clauses in light of care, this paper intends to address the value of care as human dignity, which is the highest ideology and constitutional principle of the Constitution and, at the same time, the limitation of explaining the freedom to care with a liberal concept of freedom implied in the pursuit of happiness. Ultimately, this paper argues for the justification of putting 'care' in the Constitution. In the end, this paper aims to emphasize the significance of care as a guiding principle for the maintenance of our lives and society, a primary principle of social regulation and public governance, and a direction for a just state which can identify and rectify care injustices.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.143-174
• /
• 2019

Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution, and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions. By the way, virtually multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated because the Supreme Court had interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if medical activities were not performed directly at the additional medical institution which was opened under the another doctor's license. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions with another doctor's license for the purpose of the maximization of profit, and did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, over-treatment, and commission treatment. Also, realistic problems such as the infringed health rights have arisen. Accordingly, lawmakers had come to amend the Medical Law to readjust the system of opening for medical institution so that medical personnel could not open or operate more than one medical institution for any reason. For this reason, the Constitutional Court recently declared a constitutional decision through a long period of in-depth deliberation because the constitutional petition and the adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes had been filed on whether Article 33 paragraph 8 of the revised medical law is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court acknowledged the "justice of purpose" in view of the importance of public medical institutions, of the prevention from seduction of for-profit patients and from over-treatment, and of the fact that health care should not be the object of commercial transactions. Given the risk that medical personnel might be subject to outside capital, the concern that the holder of the medical institution's opening certificate and the actual operator may be separated, the principle that the human body and life should not be just a means, and the current system's inability to identify over-treatment, it also acknowledged the 'minimum infringement'. Furthermore, The Constitutional Court judged it is constitutional in compliance with the principle of restricting fundamental rights, such as 'balance of legal interests'. In this regard, legislative complements are needed in order to effectively prevent the for-profit management and the over-treatment the Constitutional Court is concerned about. In this regard, consumer groups actively support the need for legislation, and health care providers groups also agree on the need for legislation. Therefore, the legislators should respect the recent Constitutional Court's decision and in the near future complete the complementary legislation to reflect the people's interests.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.67-100
• /
• 2017

Throughout the history of the aviation industry, from its origins in the $20^{th}$century to the present, accidents have always occurred. This paper deals with the legal liability of air traffic controllers, who represent one of the human factors causing these accidents. Though controller negligence turns out to be a main cause of the accident, Korea does not have additional judical case, since it was firstly declared that controller negligence was accountable for the air traffic accident in 1971. As such, we examine the liability of air traffic controllers as public officers. This paper looks not only at the role of air traffic controllers and pilots in accidents, but also at the applicability of controller liability in the context of Korean law. We determine that despite the high-stress environment, air traffic controllers must share in the responsibility to provide safe air navigation. Therefore, they cannot avoid legal liability.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.29-74
• /
• 2022

As social disasters occur under the Disaster Management Act, which can damage the people's "life, body, and property" due to the rapid spread and spread of unexpected COVID-19 infectious diseases in 2020, information collected through inspection and reporting of infectious disease pathogens (Article 11), epidemiological investigation (Article 18), epidemiological investigation for vaccination (Article 29), artificial technology, and prevention policy Decision), (3) It was used as an important basis for decision-making in the context of an infectious disease crisis, such as promoting vaccination and understanding the current status of damage. In addition, medical policy decisions using infectious disease data contribute to quarantine policy decisions, information provision, drug development, and research technology development, and interest in the legal scope and limitations of using infectious disease data has increased worldwide. The use of infectious disease data can be classified for the purpose of spreading and blocking infectious diseases, prevention, management, and treatment of infectious diseases, and the use of information will be more widely made in the context of an infectious disease crisis. In particular, as the serious stage of the Disaster Management Act continues, the processing of personal identification information and sensitive information becomes an important issue. Information on "medical records, vaccination drugs, vaccination, underlying diseases, health rankings, long-term care recognition grades, pregnancy, etc." needs to be interpreted. In the case of "prevention, management, and treatment of infectious diseases", it is difficult to clearly define the concept of medical practicesThe types of actions are judged based on "legislative purposes, academic principles, expertise, and social norms," but the balance of legal interests should be based on the need for data use in quarantine policies and urgent judgment in public health crises. Specifically, the speed and degree of transmission of infectious diseases in a crisis, whether the purpose can be achieved without processing sensitive information, whether it unfairly violates the interests of third parties or information subjects, and the effectiveness of introducing quarantine policies through processing sensitive information can be used as major evaluation factors. On the other hand, the collection, provision, and use of infectious disease data for research purposes will be used through pseudonym processing under the Personal Information Protection Act, consent under the Bioethics Act and deliberation by the Institutional Bioethics Committee, and data provision deliberation committee. Therefore, the use of research purposes is recognized as long as procedural validity is secured as it is reviewed by the pseudonym processing and data review committee, the consent of the information subject, and the institutional bioethics review committee. However, the burden on research managers should be reduced by clarifying the pseudonymization or anonymization procedures, the introduction or consent procedures of the comprehensive consent system and the opt-out system should be clearly prepared, and the procedure for re-identifying or securing security that may arise from technological development should be clearly defined.