• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.117-144
• /
• 2020

In accordance with Article 15 of the Medical Law, medical personnel in Korea cannot refuse treatment of a patient unless there is a justifiable reason, and violation of this obligations is subject to criminal penalties. Japan also stipulates the same content in the law. However, this violation of obligations in Japan is not subject to criminal penalties, and is used as a judgment element of the liability for damages of doctors only in the case of damage to the patient. However, in both countries, it is difficult to interpret and apply the law because the regulation is a little ambiguous. In particular, the key is to find out what is the justifiable reason for the doctor to refuse treatment of the patient. Recently, Japan has completed the work of re-examining the discussion on medical refusal from a modern perspective in terms of improving the excessive working environment of doctors. On the other hand, in Korea, it is not clear in what cases it is possible to refuse treatment. because there is a lack of systematic discussion on medical refusal. Rather, unnecessary misunderstandings and controversies have resulted in the loss of trust between patients and doctors. In Korea, there is already a legal right for a doctor to reject it according to his religious beliefs or conscience in the implementation of the suspension of life-sustaining treatment decisions. And in the case of an abortion, debates are underway that doctors should be given the right to refuse it. This study introduces the current state of discussion in Japan, and examines the issues surrounding medical refusal in Korea. It is hoped that this study will facilitate further discussions on the medical refusal.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.3-20
• /
• 2011

An arbitrator is an impartial person chosen to decide the issue between parties engaged in a dispute. But the arbitrator appointed by a party or arbitration institution shall be impartial or independent and should disclose to the administrator any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. If, at any stage during the arbitration, new circumstances arise that may give rise to such doubts, the arbitrator shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the parties and to the administrator. Upon receipt of such information from an arbitrator or a party, an party must challenge any arbitrator whenever circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to arbitrator's impartiality or independence. Under these circumstance, there were two cases declared by the Korean Supreme Court in relation to the cancellation of the arbitration award. One arbitral case was cancelled for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without disclosure arbitrator's impartiality, and the other case was refused to cancel the ward for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without challenge an arbitrator. There are not, however, the standard to decide what is definitely the arbitrator's impartiality or independence and the difference on qualification between arbitrator chosen by an party and neutral arbitrator in korean arbitration law and rules. Nevertheless, korean court require arbitrator to be impartial and independent and the arbitration parties to challenge arbitrator' impartiality or independence.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.111-140
• /
• 2007

This paper intends to review the qualifications of arbitrator, the disclosure of disqualifications by arbitrator, the challenge grounds of arbitrator, and the challenge procedure of arbitrator under the arbitration laws and rules. There are no provisions for the qualification of arbitrator in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law on person shall be precluded by reason of his nationality from acting as an arbitrators. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law when a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall without delay disclose any such circumstances to the parties. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law an arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence, or if he does not possess qualifications agreed to by the parties. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law the parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenge an arbitrator. Failing such agreement, a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal within 15 days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or any circumstance that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. Unless the challenged arbitrator withdraws from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge. In conclusion, an arbitrator has a responsibility not only to the parties but also to the process of arbitration, and must observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and must observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and fairness of the process will be preserved.

• Journal of architectural history
• /
• v.20 no.6
• /
• pp.57-76
• /
• 2011

This study is on the pedagogical convention of architectural history in Korea, especially that of Western Architecture. Recent institutional change in architectural school in Korea has caused overall restructuring of academic program. In spite of extension in the field of history there was no progress of method and way of thinking. There is no change in the point of view to see the western architecture and its history as a unique and specialized phenomenon in the civilization of mankind. Because of no recognition about for what, for whom, and how to, and because of orientalism, the cultural position of western architectural history and its narrative was not asked. With the help of post-colonialism, de-constructivism and critical historiography this paper tries to show the fundamental premise of western architectural history as a myth and show its prejudice as not being justifiable. The background of the discourse there has been a representation effect with regard to knowledge as a power. we need to escape from this kind of cognitional frame With the analysis of the its premise and narrative we can find it is a historical construct that was made in the age of imperialism. In fact it has a lot of false information and problematic point of view. The Identity and originality of western architecture and its history has no logical reason or foundation if we think that it depends on the difference and comparison with other civilization. For example the explanation of its historical origin western architecture has big difference with Islamic architecture in spite of the resemblance each other. This paper try to show several reasons that discourse of western architectural history can not be survived any longer. So we need to reconstruct new pedagogy with deconstruction for the students of non western, or Korean students. Because it has important effect to see and think about architecture and its history.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.33-56
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has cancelled four cases of thirty-nine Arbitral awards made by Korean Commercial Arbitration Board since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Three cases of them were cancelled by the reason of the arbitrator's disqualification in relation to impartiality or independence and the other to arbitration agreement enable to select the lawsuit or arbitration. When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator or has already been appointed as such, he shall without delay disclose all circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence according to the one of the article 13 of Korean Arbitration Act. Upon being notified of the appointment as an arbitrator, each arbitrator shall immediately disclose in writing to the Secretariat any circumstances which might cause reasonable doubt about impartiality or independence. An arbitration agreement shall be made clearly and in writing not to appeal to the court or to be brought in the court. However most of the korean construction contracts have the arbitration agreement clause enable to appeal to the court or the arbitration on government official's advice. Many of these disputes are resolved by litigation after the precedent(Law case number : 2003da318) set by the Supreme Court on August 22, 2003 between the Korea(government) and the Korea Railroad or abandoned its attempt to arbitration. But each year, about four hundreds of arbitration business transactions were resolved arbitration, the voluntary submission of a dispute to an impartial person or persons for final and binding determination. Arbitration has proven to be an effective way to resolve these disputes privately, promptly, and economically.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.89-115
• /
• 2021

Korea's health care delivery system is based on the Medical law and the National Health Insurance Act. In order to efficiently operate limited medical resources, it is classified to use medical institutions according to the severity of the disease. The question is whether a tertiary care hospital can terminate a medical contract for a patient, if treatment for severe diseases has already been performed at a tertiary care hospital. In the case of termination of treatment, the Korean court has both a judgment that recognizes the right to terminate and a judgment that denies the termination. Among the U.S. rulings, there are rulings that order transfer to a skilled nursing facility or nursing home or home if acute treatment is no longer needed. Considering that medical resources are limited, it is necessary to acknowledge the right to terminate the contract of the medical institution when treatment by a medical institution is completed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.81-109
• /
• 2021

This paper review about the relationship between the prohibition against medical refusal and the principle of private autonomy in medical contracts. The obligation to this Prohibition in Medical Law does not restrict the liberty of contracting a medical contract. On the other hand, the prohibition limits the freedom to terminate medical contracts. Medical contracts can be terminated if the trust between doctors and patients is vanished. However certain restrictions should be placed on termination of the medical contract, because termination of the contract should not be detrimental to patients' health. According to the current medical law the medical contract is to be enforced in principle and can be revoked only with justifiable reason. At the Civil Code on Medical Contracts the freedom to terminate the medical contract is permitted, but this paper suggests the restrictions of the revocation under certain conditions. The Criminal Punishment Regulations against medical refusal should be removed. Refusal the provide medical service should be regulated by administrative sanctions under the National Health Insurance Act's obligation.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.3-44
• /
• 2022

As a result of a close review focusing on the case of obstruction of epidemiological investigation by a religious group A in Daegu, which was a problem when the pandemic of Covid-19 infection began in Korea around February 2, 2020, when an epidemiological investigator requested a specific group to submit a list, While there have been cases where an act of not responding or submitting an edited omission list was sentenced to the effect that the act did not fall under an epidemiological investigation, in the case of non-submission of the visitor list for the B Center, even though a 'list of visitors' was requested. Regarding the fact of refusal without a justifiable reason, 'providing a list of persons entering the building is a key factual act that forms a link between epidemiological investigations accompanying an epidemiological investigation, and refusing to do so is also an act of refusal and obstruction of an epidemiological investigation. There are cases where it is possible to demand criminal punishment. Regardless of whether the request for submission of the membership list falls under the epidemiological investigation, there are cases in which the someones' actions correspond to the refusal or obstruction of the epidemiological investigation. A lower court ruling that if an epidemiological investigation is rejected or obstructed as a result of interfering with factual acts accompanying an epidemiological investigation, comprehensively considering whether or not the list has been diverted for purposes other than epidemiological investigation, the logic is persuasive. Epidemiological investigations such as surveys and human specimen collection and testing are conducted for each infectious disease patient or contact confirmed as a result of the epidemiological investigation, but epidemiological investigations conducted on individual individuals cannot exist independently of each other, and the This is because the process of identification and tracking is essential to an epidemiological investigation, and if someone intentionally interferes with or rejects the process of confirming this link, it will result in direct, realistic, and widespread interference with the epidemiological investigation. In this article, ① there are differences between an epidemiological investigation and a request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, but there are areas that fall under the epidemiological investigation even in the case of a request for information, ② Considering the medical characteristics of COVID-19 and the continuity of the epidemiological investigation, the epidemiological investigator the fact that the act of requesting a list may fall under the epidemiological investigation, ③ that the offense of obstructing the epidemiological investigation in certain cases may constitute 'obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means', and ④ rejecting the request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act from September 29, 2020 In this case, it is intended to be helpful in the application of the Infectious Disease control and Prevention Act and the practical operation of epidemiological investigations in the future by pointing out the fact that a new punishment regulation of imprisonment or fine is being implemented.