• Environmental Analysis Health and Toxicology
• /
• 제31권
• /
• pp.15.1-15.6
• /
• 2016

A number of absurdities surrounding the humidifier disinfectant (HD) incident may have occurred because 1) a judicial system operates on the underlying false assumption that the involved parties are equals in knowledge, information and resource mobilization capabilities, regardless of respective real status as company or individual; 2) there is a lack of a system that mandates a company to prevent and actively manage possible catastrophes; 3) the regulatory scheme makes companies believe that as long as they are complying with the existing regulations, they have satisfied all of their responsibilities. I believe that this issue is an opportunity to bring about changes in the judicial redress system, the system of internal management of manufacturers, and the regulatory system of the government. The following regulation amendments are needed to move towards the changes stated above. First, legislation relating to victim relief that is applicable to the HD incident must be established. Second, a risk management system must be formed within the manufacturing company and to this end an institutional environment for the system must be established within regulatory framework. Furthermore, legislation must be passed that could punish companies themselves that have caused severe damage to individuals because they had failed to take necessary actions to avoid foreseeable harm. Finally, the framework of regulation must be changed so that the company, who has the necessary information regarding the product and the component chemicals used in the product, must self-directed experiment and assessment of the safety of their own products.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.459-488
• /
• 2004

General interest in the out-of-court dispute resolution system are mounting in Korea, and the spread of ADR(alternative dispute resolution) is the worldwide trend. In addition, it was confirmed that the resolution of disputes by ADR such as the decision based on arbitration made by the Prime Ministerial Administrative Decision Committee is no longer in exclusive possession of the civil case. The activation of ADR could lead to the smooth agreement between parties by getting away from the once-for-all mode of decision such as the dismissal of the application or the cancellation of disposal and the like in relation to administrative cases for the years. In consequence, it is anticipated that the administrative litigation that applicants have filed by not responding to the administrative decision would greatly reduce in the future. But, it would be urgent to provide for the legal ground of the ADR system through the revision of related laws to take root in our society because ADR has no legal binding power relating to the administrative case due to the absence of its legal grounds. The fundamental reason for having hesitated to introduce ADR in relation to the administrative case for the years is the protective interest of the third party as well as the public interest that would follow in case the agreement on the dispute resolution between parties brings the dispute to a termination in the domain of the public law. The disputes related to the contract based on the public law and the like that take on a judicial character as the administrative act have been settled within the province of ADR by applying the current laws such as the Civil Arbitration Law, Mediation Law, but their application to the administrative act of the administrative agency that takes on a character of the public law has been hesitated. But as discussed earlier, there are laws and regulations that has the obscure distinction between public and private laws. But there is no significant advantage in relation to the distinction between public and private laws. To supplement and cure these defects it is necessary to include the institutional arrangement for protection of the rights and benefits of the third party, for example the provision of the imposition of the binding power on the result of ADR between parties, in enacting its related law. It can be said that the right reorganization of the out-of-court dispute resolution system in relation to the administrative case corresponds with the ideology of public administration for cooperaton in the Administrative Law. It is high time to discuss within what realm the out-of-court dispute resolution system, alternative dispute resolution system, can be accepted and what binding power is imposed on its result, not whether it is entirely introduced into the administrative case. It is thought that the current Civil Mediation Law or Arbitration Law provides the possibility of applying arbitration or mediation only to the civil case, thereby opening the possibility of arbitration in the field of the intellectual property right law. For instance, the act of the state is not required in establishing the rights related to the secret of business or copyrights. Nevertheless, the disputes arising from or in connection with the intellectual property rights law is seen as the administrative case, and they are excluded from the object of arbitration or mediation, which is thought to be improper. This is not an argument for unconditionally importing ADR into the resolution of administrative cases. Most of the Korean people are aware that the administrative litigation system is of paramount importance as the legal relief for administrative cases. Seeing that there is an independent administrative decision system based on the Administrative Decision Law other than administrative litigation in relation to administrative cases, the first and foremost task is the necessity for the shift in thinking of people, followed by consideration of the plan for relief of the rights through the improvement of the administrative decision system. Then, it is necessary to formulate the plan for the formal introduction and activation of ADR. In this process, energetic efforts should be devoted to introducing diverse forms of ADR procedures such as settlement conference, case evaluation, mini-trial, summary jury trial, early neutral evaluation adopted in the US as the method of dispute resolution other than compromise, conciliation, arbitration and mediation

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.159-193
• /
• 2015

병원감염 사례에 관한 판결의 주류적 태도는 병원감염 발생으로 인한 손해의 분담을 사실상 환자 측에 전가하는 문제가 있다고 판단되므로, 손해의 공평 타당한 분담을 그 지도 원리로 하는 손해배상제도의 이념에 비추어 환자 측의 증명책임을 대폭 완화하기 위한 방법을 강구할 필요성이 있다. 이와 관련하여 진료계약을 민법상 전형계약으로 규정하고, 병원감염과 같은 의료 측이 전적으로 지배할 수 있었던 경우에는 일반적 진료상 위험이 실현된 때 진료자의 오류가 추정된다고 명문으로 과실추정규정을 둔 독일민법을 검토하였다. 진료계약은 매우 빈번하고 광범위하게 일반 국민의 실생활에서 체결되고 있으며, 그로 인한 분쟁도 다양하게 발생하고 있으므로, 진료계약을 독일과 같이 민법의 전형계약으로 규정함으로써 계약 내용과 분쟁 발생 시 증명책임 등에 관해 규율할 필요성이 있다. 병원감염 사건의 경우 법률에 의해 과실을 추정하고, 병원감염 예방을 위한 노력을 철저히 시행한 기관에 한하여 병원감염 사고로 인한 손해가 발생한 경우 그 비용을 지원하도록 사회보험을 통한 제도적 보완이 필요하다고 생각되며, 향후 이에 관한 면밀한 연구와 검토가 요구된다.