• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.42 no.6
• /
• pp.375-384
• /
• 2016

Objectives: This paper analyzes the intersection of tort law and environmental health in a recent court decision. Methods: This paper analyzes Supreme Court Decision 2011Da7437, Decided on September 4, 2014 and related lower court decisions. Results: The plaintiffs sought financial compensation from the defendants, arguing that air pollutants in gases emitted by vehicles produced by the defendants had caused them to acquire respiratory diseases. The district court highlighted the need to mitigate the burden of proof for the plaintiffs, but proceeded to review whether the plaintiffs proved the actual toxicity levels of the air pollutants, whether the defendant's vehicles were the main source of the emissions, the plaintiff's level of exposure to the pollutants, and causation between the emissions and the injury. By doing so, the district court required the plaintiffs to prove both indirect and direct facts of causation, increasing burden of proof for plaintiffs. The appellate court upheld the district court's decision, adding that the defendant's conduct did not constitute an illegal act because it did not violate the emissions standards set by environmental law. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision, reasoning that the epidemiological evidence cannot establish a direct causation for diseases that lack specificity. Conclusion: This case demonstrates that discussions in environmental health have significance in tort lawsuits. For each fact that the plaintiffs and defendants attempted to prove, environmental health research studies were offered as evidence. In addition, the courts decided the legality of the defendant's conduct based on emission standards set by environmental law.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.5-32
• /
• 2011

This paper is a comparative analysis of constitutional decisions in which the Korea Consitutional Court and the United States Supreme Court applied the void for vagueness doctrine into free expression issues. Common aspects are: both courts applied the void for vagueness doctrine on the grounds that vague laws bring chilling effect on freedom of expression. Acknowledging inevitable uncertainties in lawmaking and legal jargons, however, both courts required minimum standards in the void for vagueness doctrine. In the cases where unclear legal meanings resulted in constitutional challenges, both courts adopted the "narrowing construction" by the courts or judges based on average/ordinary person's understanding. The biggest differences between the two constitutional courts are their approach to the degrees of vagueness allowed in free expression cases. The U.S. Supreme Court underscored the necessity of narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards. Meanwhile, the Korea Constitutional Court relaxed its standards in some cases such as the National Security Law cases, even though it admitted the possibility of curtailing the right to free expression. The Court reasoned that those laws, though vague, brought with bigger social interests and are necessary tools in dealing with changing world.

• Journal of Research and Publication Ethics
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.23-28
• /
• 2020

Purpose: Focusing on Supreme Court precedents, we intend to establish criteria for judging research misconduct. Research design, data and methodology: In addition, I would like to propose the criteria for judging research misconduct by the KODISA, which applies the court's standards well in practice, and guidelines for preventing research misconduct. Research design, data and methodology: After classifying the case of research misconduct into six cases, the court's judgment and practical application will be reviewed. Results: First, research misconduct that has passed the disciplinary prescription can be punished. This is because the state of illegality continues to this day. Second, even if there were no punishment regulations at the time of research misconduct, it can be retroactively punished with the current punishment regulations. This is because research ethics is a universal and common standard and does not change. Third, if there is a fact that infringes on intellectual property rights, it is presumed unwritten intentions. Therefore, the act of taking and using the work of another person without permission or proper citation procedure, even if it is unintentional and for the public interest, is a research misconduct. Fourth, if there is an inappropriate citation notation, the intention of research misconduct is presumed. It is the judgment of the court that even if a quotation is marked, if it is incomplete, it is recognized as plagiarism. Fifth, if the author uses the work of another person without proper source indication, it is plagiarism even if the other person who owns the copyright agrees to it. The understanding or consent of some parties does not justify research misconduct in violation of public trust. Sixth, it is a research misconduct to create a new work without citations for one's previous work. In addition, even if there is a citation, if the subsequent writing is not original, it is a research misconduct. Conclusions: Academia should clarify the scope of research misconduct by referring to the Research Ethics Regulations of KODISA, and deal with research results that lack the value as creative works similar to those of research misconduct.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.40 no.2
• /
• pp.157-170
• /
• 2014

Objectives: Agent Orange TCDD has been related to serious diseases among Korean veterans who were exposed to it. Decades after the end of the war, however, its effects are still being debated. The object of this study was to examine various unmet needs raised among Agent Orange exposed veterans and their families and to find grounds of a new welfare policy for providing alternative legislation. Methods: Literatures concerning Agent Orange, TCDD, the associated diseases, compensation for veterans and Supreme Court sentencing were searched using PubMed, ProQuest, press news and relevant homepages. Results: Agent Orange exposed veterans are eligible for various benefits from the government, including disability compensation for diseases associated with exposure. The Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs has classified certain diseases into two categories, Agent Orange sequela diseases and sequela suspect diseases and has provided differential benefits based on separated laws. Big differences exist in benefits to veterans and their families between the two laws. The absence of definite standards to classify the Agent Orange associated diseases was confirmed by recent Supreme Court sentencing which ruled in favor of US manufacturers. Conclusion: It appears that the evidence for cause and effect of Agent Orange related diseases would never be perfect. The results suggest a need to change welfare principles from presumptive or indefinite disease basis to exposure experiences combined with integrated disability evaluation. We propose to extend eligibility by enacting a new law for Agent Orange exposed Korean veterans.

• The Journal of Bigdata
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.11-22
• /
• 2023

This research aimed to examine the public's perception of the "rate of sentence reduction for reasons of mental and physical weakness" and investigate if it aligns with the actual practice. Various sources, such as the Supreme Court's Courtnet search system, the number of mental evaluation requests, and the number of articles and comments related to "mental weakness" on Naver News were utilized for the analysis. The findings indicate that the public has a negative opinion on reducing sentences due to mental and physical weakness, and they are dissatisfied with the vagueness of the standards. However, this study also confirms that the court strictly applies the reduction of responsibility for individuals with mental disabilities specified in Article 10 of the Criminal Act based on the analysis of actual judgments and the number of requests for psychiatric evaluation. In other words, even though the recognition of perpetrators' mental disorders is declining, the public does not seem to recognize this trend. This creates a negative impact on the public's trust in state institutions. Therefore, law enforcement agencies, such as the police and prosecutors, need to enforce the law according to clear standards to gain public trust. The judiciary also needs to make a firm decision on commuting sentences for mentally and physically infirm individuals and inform the public of the outcomes of its application.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.519-546
• /
• 2004

On June 27, 2002 Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) launched dot-ca domain name dispute resolution service through BCICAC and Resolution Canada, Inc. The Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) of CIRA is basically modelled after Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), while the substance of CDRP is slightly modified to meet the need of Canadian domain name regime and its legal system. Firstly, this article examined CIRA's domain name dispute resolution policy in general. It is obvious that the domain name dispute resolution proceeding is non-binding arbitration to which arbitration law does not apply. However it still belongs to the arbitration and far from the usual mediation process. Domain name arbitrators render decision rather than assist disputing parties themselves reach to agreement. In this respect the domain name arbitration is similar to arbitration or litigation rather than mediation. Secondly it explored how the panels applied the substantive standards in domain name arbitration. There is some criticism that panelists interprets the test of "confusingly similar" in conflicting manner. As a result critics assert that courts' judicial review is necessary to reduce the conflicting interpretation on the test of substantive standards stipulated in paragraph 3 of CDRP. Finally, it analysed the court's position on domain name arbitral award. Canadian courts do not seem to establish a explicit standard for judicial review over it yet. However, in Black v. Molson case Ontario Superior Court applied the UDRP rules in examining the WIPO panel's decision, while US courts often apply domestic patent law and ACPA(Anticyber -squatting Consumer's Protection Act) to review domain name arbitration decision rather than UDRP rules. In conclusion this article suggests that courts should restrict their judicial review on domain name administrative panel's decision at best. This will lead to facilitating the use of ADR in domain name dispute resolution and reducing the burden of courts' dockets.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.118-127
• /
• 2012

Objectives: This study was undertaken to assess the sanitary conditions in the kitchens of food court/cafeterias and determine seasonal variations. Methods: We measured environmental factors (air temperature, relative humidity, illumination intensity, noise level), and dropping airborne microbes (bacteria and fungi) in the kitchens of eight food court/cafeterias in four seasons (January, April, July, and October). Air temperature and relative humidity were measured with in/out thermo-hygrometers at 1.2-1.5 m above floor level. Illuminance measurement was performed through the multiple point method of Korean Standards (KS). Noise level was measured by the standard methods for the examination of environmental pollution (noise and vibration) of Korea. The estimation of dropping airborne bacteria and fungi was performed through use of Koch's method. Results: The highest kitchen air temperature was in July, and the lowest in January. The average temperature surpassed $21^{\circ}C$ throughout the seasons, suggesting a higher temperature than required for the safe handling of food. Humidity in all the kitchens was measured in the range of 50-60%. Half of the kitchens showed illumination intensities below 300 Lux in April. It was found that the sound pressure level of noise in almost all of the kitchens was higher than 85 dB (A). The highest levels of dropping airborne bacteria and fungi were noted in July. The numbers of airborne bacteria were higher than those of fungi. The levels of dropping airborne bacteria and fungi were affected by air temperature, relative humidity, season, and place. Conclusions: This study indicates that the kitchen environments were unqualified to supply safe food. The hygiene level of the kitchens should be improved.

• 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.