• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.29-60
• /
• 2010

The incentive and reasons to publish FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Design, Build and Operate Projects(DBO Form) are manifold. It is partly a response to the increasing need for sophisticated project delivery methods in both the public and private sectors and the already widespread use of the FIDIC Yellow Book with operation and maintenance obligations and partly a response to the challenge to decrease maintenance cost to a minimum by means of a new procurement route. As a result, FIDIC has developed a new model form to meet this market place requirement. On the other hand, FIDIC did not simply adapt the Yellow Book but has developed a new form from it, whilst preserving the style of the already known FIDIC Forms and maintaining the wording where it was not necessary to change it for the purposes of a DBO Form. Moreover DBO Form fills up supposed gaps in other FIDIC Forms and ameliorates the claim management and dispute management framework. FIDIC DBO approach may be shortly summarized as follows. First, DBO Form provides for single project responsibility. Second, DBO Form has the clear objective of ensuring the use of a most reliable and efficient technology at the lowest life-cycle cost. Third, DBO Form is intended to operate as an effective quality increase in the design and construction of projects. Fourth, DBO Form is intended to provide significant benefits with regard to system integration and reduction of risks. Fifth, DBO Form accelerates and enhances completion schedule compliance. Sixth, DBO takes care of all three supporting pillars of sustainability(including economical, environmental and social elements). DBO Form is obviously a good starting point for negotiations and the preparation of calls for tenders, thus saving the parties time and money. However, existing cultural and legal differences, particular local conditions and the particular needs of some branches of the industry may require the form to be adapted according to the particular needs of a project. And Civil law practitioners are strongly recommended to verify carefully the underlying legal concepts and background of each clause of the General Conditions in order to avoid unnecessary and sometimes unnatural changes and amendments being made. Note that when preparing the Particular Conditions ensure that terminology is consistent and that existing inherent concepts should not be ignored.

• Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.283-296
• /
• 2006

Along with the development of scientific technologies, health care has been growing remarkably, and as the social life quality improves with increasing interest in health, the demand for medical service is rapidly increasing. However, medical accident and medical dispute also are rapidly increasing due to various factors such as, increasing sense of people's right, lack of understanding in the nature of medical practice, over expectation on medical technique, commercialize medical supply system, moral degeneracy and unawareness of medical jurisprudence by doctors, widespread trend of mutual distrust, and lack of systematized device for solution of medical dispute. This study analysed 30 cases of civil suit in the year between 1994 to 2004, which were selected among the medical dispute cases in dental field with the judgement collected from organizations related to dentistry and department of oral medicine, Yonsei university dental hospital. The following results were drawn from the analyses: 1. The distribution of year showed rapid increase of medical dispute after the year 2000. 2. In the types of medical dispute, suit associated with tooth extraction took 36.7% of all. 3. As for the cause of medical dispute, uncomfortable feeling and dissatisfaction with the treatment showed 36.7%, death and permanent damage showed 16.7% each. 4. Winning the suit, compulsory mediation and recommendation for settlement took 60.0% of judgement result for the plaintiff. 5. For the type of medical organization in relation to medical dispute, 60.0% was found to be the private dental clinics, and 30.0% was university dental hospitals. 6. For the level of trial, dispute that progressed above 2 or 3 trials was of 30.0%. 7. For the amount of claim for damage, the claim amounting between 50 million to 100 million won was of 36.7%, and that of more than 100 million won was 13.3%, and in case of the judgement amount, the amount ranging from 10 million to 30 million won was of 40.0%, and that of more than 100 million won was of 6.7%. 8. For the number of dentist involved in the suit, 26.7% was of 2 or more dentists. 9. For the amount of time spent until the judgement, 46.7% took 11 to 20 months, and 36.7% took 21 to 30 months. 10. For medical malpractice, 46.7% was judged to be guilty, and 70% of the cases had undergone medical judgement or verification of the case by specialists during the process of the suit. 11. In the lost cases of doctors(18 cases), 72.2% was due to violence of carefulness in practice and 16.7% was due to missing of explanation to patient. Medical disputes occurring in the field of dentistry are usually of relatively less risky cases. Hence, the importance of explanation to patient is emphasized, and since the levels of patient satisfaction are subjective, improvement of the relationship between the patient and the dentist and recovery of autonomy within the group dentist are essential in addition to the reduction of technical malpractice. Moreover, management measure against the medical dispute should be set up through complement of the current doctors and hospitals medical malpractice insurance which is being conducted irrationally, and establishment of system in which education as well as consultation for medical disputes lead by the group of dental clinicians and academic scholars are accessible.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.211-253
• /
• 2005

Recently, the Korean Supreme Court released two important decisions concerning damages for the pain and suffering from Aircraft noise. The local people who are living near the Air Force practice site at Maehyang-ri and the Kimpo International Airport brought lawsuits against the Korean government requesting damages for their financial loss from the severe noise and the damages for their pain and suffering. Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered physical malfunctions, extreme disturbances and the reduction of property values from the extreme noises which were daily repeated. District Court of Seoul Province did not allow plaintiffs all but the damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiffs could not prove the causation between their financial loss and the noise. The Supreme Court confirmed the lower court's decision. Article V of the National Compensation Act (analogous to the Federal Tort Claims Act of the USA) reads, "the government shall be liable for any loss caused by the defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities." In the two cases, the major issue was whether the government's establishment or maintenance of Air Force practice site and the airport was defective because they caused serious noise to surrounding neighbors. Previously, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause "defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities" as failure of duty to provide safety measures to the degree generally required to ordinary manager. However the Court at this time interpreted differently that the defect could be found if the facility caused to any person loss to the degree intolerable. In the two cases the Court confirmed the lower court's finding that noise level at the site was severe enough to be intolerable. This standard is based on the severity of the loss rather than the failure of duty. It became easier for plaintiffs to prove the cause of action under this interpretation. The consequence of the ruling of these two cases is 'rush to the courtroom' by the local people at similar situations. The ruling of these two cases was not appropriate both in theory and in consequence. The Korean tort system is basically based on the theory of negligence. Strict liability is exceptional only when there is special legislation. The Court created strict liability rule by interpreting the Art. V of the National Compensation Act. This is against the proper role of the court. The result of the cases is also dismal. The government was already sued by a number of local people for damages. Especially the Department of Defense which is operating many airports nationwide has financial hardship, which will cause downsizing military practice by the Air Force in the long run, This is no good to anyone. Tens of millions of dollars which might be used for compensation might be better used to prevent further noise problem surrounding airports.