• 한국환경보건학회지
• /
• 제42권6호
• /
• 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.

• 한국언론정보학보
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.5-32
• /
• 2011

한국의 헌법재판소와 미국의 연방대법원 모두 불명확한 법률로 인한 표현의 자유가 위축되는 것을 방지하기 위해 명확성 원칙을 위헌심사 기준으로 채택했다. 위헌심사 기준으로서 요구되는 명확성의 정도가 최고수준의 명확성이 아닌 "최소한의 명확성"이라는 점과 그러한 판단을 법관의 "제한적 해석"에 맡긴다는 점도 공통점이다. 헌법재판소는 법관의 보충적 해석을 통해 보다 명확하게 불법과 합법의 경계를 구분하게 했고, 미국 연방대법원도 법원이 한정해석(narrow construction)의 방법으로 법률적 의미와 범위를 명확하게 함으로써 위헌의 소지를 줄일 수 있다고 판결했다. 그런데 판례 비교 결과, 연방대법원은 표현의 자유를 침해하는 법적 규제에 대해서는 보다 높은 수준의 명확성을 요구한 반면, 헌법재판소는 오히려 명확성 판단기준을 완화하는 경우가 발견되었다. 연방대법원은 수정헌법1조를 침해할 여지가 있는 법조항은 "세밀하게 설정된, 합리적이고, 명확한 기준(narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards)"이 제시되어야 한다고 거듭 강조한 데 비해, 헌법재판소는 불명확한 법률조항으로 인해 표현의 자유 침해여지가 있다는 점을 인정하면서도, 그러한 규제를 통해 얻는 국가 사회적 이익이 더 크다는 이유로, 혹은 "부단히 변화하는 다양한 생활관계를 제대로 규율할" 필요가 있다는 이유로 명확성 원칙을 희석시키는 경향을 보이기도 했다.

• 연구윤리
• /
• 제1권1호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국환경보건학회지
• /
• 제40권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국빅데이터학회지
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.11-22
• /
• 2023

본 연구는 대중들이 '심신장애를 사유로 하는 형량 감경 비율'에 대해 어떻게 생각하고 있는지 분석하고, 여론의 방향과 실제 법원의 판단이 합치되는지 확인하기 위해 수행되었다. 이를 위해, 대법원 코트넷 판결문 검색시스템과 기관별 정신감정 의뢰 건수, 네이버 뉴스에서 '심신장애'를 키워드로 하는 기사의 개수와 댓글 개수, 댓글 내용을 크롤링한 결과를 활용하였다. 데이터 분석 결과, 여론은 심신장애에 따른 형량 감경에 대해 부정적이었으며 그 기준의 모호성에 대해 불만을 나타냈다. 그러나 실제 판결문 분석과 기관별 정신감정 의뢰 건수 분석 결과 법원은 「형법」제10조(심신장애)에 규정된 정신장애인의 책임 조각 및 책임 감경에 대해 엄격하게 판단하고 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 즉, 가해자의 정신장애에 대한 인정 사례는 줄어들고 있지만 여론은 이를 인지하지 못하고 있다. 공권력이 국민 수호의 의무를 충분히 수행하고 있지 못하다는 여론의 형성은 국가기관에 대한 국민의 신뢰를 떨어뜨리는 부정적 효과를 갖고 있다. 따라서 국민의 안전을 보장하는 경찰과 검찰은 국민의 신뢰를 얻기 위해 명확한 기준에 따라 법집행을 할 필요가 있으며 사법부도 심신장애에 대한 감형 기준에 대해 엄중한 판단은 물론 그 적용 결과를 국민들에게 인식시켜줄 필요가 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국환경보건학회지
• /
• 제38권2호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.143-174
• /
• 2019

우리 헌법은, 국가로 하여금 국민의 건강을 보호할 의무를 지우고 있고, 이에 따라 구체화된 규범인 의료법은 의료기관 개설 등에 관한 사항을 상세히 규정하고 있는데, 그 내용 중 하나가 의료인의 의료기관 복수개설·운영 금지제도이다. 이에 대하여, 종래의 판례는 '다른 의사 명의로 추가 개설하는 의료기관에서 직접 의료행위 등을 하지 않는다면 여러 개의 의료기관을 개설·운영할 수 있다'라고 해석함으로써, 사실상 복수의 의료기관을 개설·운영할 수 있었다. 하지만 일부 의료인들이 다른 의료인의 면허로 의료기관을 여러 장소에 개설하고 이익을 극대화하기 위하여, 환자유인행위를 하거나 과잉진료 및 위임치료를 하는 등의 불법의료행위를 조장할 뿐만 아니라 국민의 건강권 등을 침해하는 현실적 문제가 발생하게 되었다. 이에 입법자는 의료법의 개정을 통해 의료인은 어떠한 명목으로도 둘 이상의 의료기관을 개설하거나 운영할 수 없도록 의료기관 개설제도를 정비하게 되었다. 이와 같은 개정 의료법 제33조 제8항이 위헌인지 여부에 대하여, 헌법소원과 위헌법률심판 제청이 되어 헌법재판소에서 오랜 기간 심층심리 끝에 최근 합헌결정이 선고되었다. 헌법재판소는, 보건의료는 상거래의 대상이 되어서는 아니 되고, 공공의료기관의 비중, 영리목적 환자유인, 과잉진료 등을 방지하기 위한 점을 감안하여 '목적의 정당성'을 인정하였다. 또한 의료인이 외부 자본에 종속될 우려가 있는 점, 의료기관 개설 명의인과 실제 운영자가 분리되는 것은 우려스러운 점, 인간의 신체와 생명이 수단이 되어서는 아니 된다는 점, 현재의 의료체계상 과잉진료 확인이 불가한 점 등을 고려해 볼 때 '침해의 최소성'도 인정하였다. 나아가 '법익 균형성' 등 기본권 제한의 원칙인 과잉금지원칙을 준수하여 합헌이라고 판단하였다. 이와 같이 헌법재판소가 우려하고 있는 영리추구, 과잉진료를 현실적으로 방지하기 위해서는 입법적 보완이 필요하다. 이와 관련하여 소비자단체는 입법의 필요성에 적극 찬성하고 있고, 보건의료 공급자 단체 또한 입법의 필요성에 공감하고 있다. 따라서 입법자는 헌법재판소의 이번 결정을 존중하고, 국민들의 입장을 반영하여 빠른 시일 내에 보완입법을 마련하길 기대한다.