• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.79-117
• /
• 2023

Among the healthcare-related judgments handed down in 2002, there was a significant ruling on the timing of the duty of explanation, stating that, in order to ensure the exercise of the patient's right to self-determination, the patient must be given time to consider and decide on the risks and side effects of a medical procedure in specific circumstances. In addition, in a case where an insurance company claimed unjust enrichment against a medical institution on behalf of its insureds, the court provided a clear standard by distinguishing between active and passive requirements regarding the need to preserve the right of subrogation of creditors. In the area of medical administration, there was a ruling that clarified that a medical institution's business suspension under the National Health Insurance Act is directed against the medical institution, a ruling that broadly recognized causation in a case of compensation for side effects of corona vaccination, and a ruling on the scope of a medical practitioner's license, such as the use of ultrasound devices by an oriental medicine practitioner. In a case involving a patient's claim for eviction from a medical institution, the court reviewed a ruling on just cause for termination of a hospitalization contract in relation to Article 15(1) of the Medical law.