• 무역학회지
• /
• 제44권6호
• /
• pp.135-150
• /
• 2019

Under the Manufacturing Liability Act, consumers want to be protected from manufacturers by mitigating burden of proof as an important target to be protected. However, due to the complexity of the product, it is very difficult for consumers to prove defects from the manufacturing defect. This situation has led to a major revision of the Manufacturing Liability Act, which mitigates the burden of proof of consumers by applying fruitless liability. The Manufacturing Liability Act is comparable to the U.S., which has strong consumer rights and is protected by the Manufacturing Liability Act. The burden of proof can be regarded as the most necessary content for consumers within the manufacturing product liability law when responding to manufacturing defects. The U.S. intends to provide implications for achieving consumer protection in Korea's Manufacturing Liability Act by imitating the U.S. based on the burden of proof. Case comparison regarding burden of proof can be conducted based on various criteria, including criteria for each product and key features for determining the importance of the manufacturing product liability law. The Act on the Responsibility of Korean Manufacturing Products for the Protection of Consumers was developed based on the assessment criteria, and a remedy was proposed to protect consumers who suffered from manufacturing defects.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2006

In recent years, as well as the other countries, medical dispute cases increase continuously in China. one of the reason that medical cases increase rapidly like this is after reformation and opening people's sense of independence, law and right come to be high, but a theoretical study about medical malpractice liability is insufficient and there is deficiency at legislation from 1986 civil law general rule is carried out in Chinese. but it is difficulty to deal with those more and more complicated medical dispute only according to the law above. so in 2001 The Chinese Supreme Court established the judicial construction about civil litigation evidence which regulated the shift of the burden of proof of medical malpractice and the relation of cause and effect from the plaintiffs to the defendants. in 2002 the State Council made out Incident of Malpractice Processing Rule. but many scholar pointed out the problem in it. on the other side, according to Chinese Contract Law parties could choose contractual or tort liability to prosecute. but because of the judicial construction above majority of people asked tort liability. of course there are some cases asking contractual liability. then this paper aim at analysis of the Chinese medical malpractice liability, especially of the problems about the subject of responsibility, burden of proof and scope of responsibility.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.147-170
• /
• 2016

International maritime law conventions concerned with cargo liabilities have sought to achieve solutions which will be acceptable to a wide range of states. The Rotterdam Rules was approved by the UN Assembly on 11 December 2008. The Rotterdam Rules are intended to replace The Hague and Hamburg Rules. This paper is comparing The Rotterdam Rules with The Hague and Hamburg Rules for the carrier' liabilities and exceptions in order to find carrier' liability System, the burden of proof and exceptions in the International maritime Rules. The purpose of this paper is considering the carrier's principal recourse for defending himself inmost cargo claims. The first area analyze the transfer of carrier's fundamental Liability system in the International Rules. The second is the matter on the appointment of proof in order to establish liability or to be relieve of liability. And the third is the change of the carrier's possible exclusions from liability in the International maritime Rules. From the result of the said analysis, my paper suggests differences of the exclusions in the Rotterdam Rules comparing with the Hague and Hamburg Rules, and features of the Rotterdam Rules appling exceptions on the basis of the Hague and Hamburg Rules with regard to carrier's liability and burden of proof. The former is the inclusion of three exclusions, the deleted natural fault, and The provision making the carrier responsible for the acts of its servants or agents in the 'fire on the ship' of the Rotterdam Rules. The latter is deleting the principle of overriding obligation related to carrier's obligation of seaworthiness in the Rotterdam Rules, the burden of proof being diverted from the carrier to the carrier and the shipper in the cargo damage caused by two factors(one for which the carrier was liable and the other for which it was excusable) in the new rules.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.65-117
• /
• 2011

This article analyzes the case (2008Da16776) which has the issue how patients have to prove causal relationship when patients claim against pharmaceutical companies alleging that patients were infected with virus due to contaminated blood products. The Supreme court held that: (1) if patients prove that they didn't have symptoms suggesting virus infection before administration of blood products, the virus infection had been confirmed after administration of blood products, and there were significant potential of contamination of the blood products with the virus, the defect in blood products or the negligence of pharmaceutical company in making blood products shall be presumed to cause the infection of the victim. (2) The pharmaceutical companies could reverse the presumption by proving the blood products were not contaminated, but the fact that the victims were treated with the blood products manufactured by other companies or had received blood transfusions is not enough to reverse the presumption. The case is the first decision whether the burden of proof about causal relationship could be reduced in pharmaceutical product liability lawsuit. Hereafter pharmaceutical product liability cases, it would be necessary to reduce the burden of proof about causal relationship in order to make substantive equality between patients and pharmaceutical companies.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권3호
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2018

한국 제조물책임법 제정 후 입증책임에 관한 신설조항이 추가되고 소비자 보호의 목적에 맞게 개정된 후 시행되고 있다. 신설조항 제3조 2는 입증책임 완화를 위해 간접사실을 입증하면 인과관계를 추정하는 규정을 명문화하였다. 소비자의 권익이 높아지고 소비자 문제에 대중의 관심이 쏠리고 있지만 여전히 문제점이 대두하고 있는 상황이다. 이 문제점을 해결하기 위해 강력한 소비자의 권리를 가지고 있는 미국 제조물책임법을 연구하여 소비자 보호의 측면에서 한국의 제조물책임법이 나아가야 할 방향에 대해 서술하였다. 비교분석 결과를 도출하면 엄격책임의 엄격성, 소비자분쟁해결, 입증가능성, 소송접근성의 기준에서 미국이 한국에 비해 엄격책임의 개념이 확장되어 제조물책임에 엄격책임을 적용 시 더욱 강하게 다루어졌으며, 소비자분쟁해결제도는 교육과 체제적인 소비자 ADR제도를 운영하여 소비자를 철저하게 보호하였다. 입증가능성기준에서 한국은 입증내용이 3가지, 미국은 1가지로 증명내용의 수가 작음에 따라 미국이 입증가능성이 높았고, 소비자소송이 빈번하게 이루어지는 미국은 입증책임 당사자가 제조자로 전환되어 소송 시 입증책임을 당사자가 소비자인 한국에 비해 소송접근성이 높았다. 본 연구에서는 소비자 보호에 초점을 맞추어 한국 제조물책임법이 발전될 수 있는 시사점을 제공한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.139-175
• /
• 2017

국회는 2017년 3월 30일 제조물책임법 일부개정법률안을 국회본회의에서 통과시켰다. 본 개정안에는 무엇보다 피해자인 소비자의 입증책임을 완화시키며 제조물책임의 배상책임을 3배까지 증액하는 신설조항이 있어서, 제조물책임관련 소송이 증대될 것이며, 제조물책임보험 가입이 증가할 것이다. 군용항공기 제작사는 군용항공기의 제작목적이 기동성 위주이며, 군의 작전성을 위주로 운용되기 때문에 현실적으로 군용항공기 제조사들이 군용항공기 제조물책임보험을 들 수 없는 현실 상황하에 군용항공기제작사는 제조물책임법과 하자담보책임, 채무불이행책임의 손해배상 위험에 직면하여 있다. 제조물책임법의 시원지인 미국은 1970년대 제조물책임법이 시행되게 되자, 군용항공기제작사의 책임한도에 대하여 학계, 법조계, 보험업계에서 큰 논란이 있었으며, 군용항공기 제작사의 책임문제를 해결하기 위하여, Government Contractor Defense (GCD, 정부계약자항변) 라는 법리를 판례로 만들어 냈다. 한국과 미국정부가 맺고 실제 적용하고 있는 Foreign Military Sales(FMS) 계약서에는 군용항공기제작사에 대한 면책조항이 있다. 군용항공기 제작사가 높은 제조물책임보험을 들 수 없고, 방산원가에도 제조물책임보험료를 반영시키지 않는 현실에서 외국의 수출을 확대하고 있는 군용항공기제작사는 위기 그 자체에 직면하고 있음을 정확히 알고, 시급히 이러한 위기를 해결할 수 있는 입법개정, 정책수립을 하여야만 한다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.59-84
• /
• 2010

Medical practice is characterized by various physiological response and uncapacity of prediction, therefore when medical accident occur it's hard to prove medical professionals' mistake. Though medical accident by medical professionals' mistake will be compensated anyhow, about irresistible medical accidents, no one should be not bound to compensate, victims get into very difficult situation. So, the nation don't negligent irresistible medical accidents but compensate anyway. As in the past, to the legal principle's constitution of irresistible medical accidents, theory of liability without fault was adapted, and it was said this theory was illogical in theory of liability with fault. But the subject of compensation to irresistible medical accidents is nation, nation don't participate in medical treatment therefore there is no room to occur mistake. And it is not reasonable to regard medical agency as a truster of public service, to cast to it responsibility of medical accidents. The problem of compensation to irresistible medical accidents is understood under the theory of social compensation. Social compensation is consisted of compensation to sacrifice and contribution to nation and society and compensation to sacrifice revealed under danger, the compensation to irresistible medical accidents belongs to the latter. This is near to concept of relief, is applied to national compensation system supplementarily, and compensation have no option but to compensate minimum. And there are not relation between national compensation system of irresistible medical accidents and proof liability transposition and theory of liability with out fault, merely in side of sharing responsibility burden between medical treater and victim, it is reasonable to discuss transportation of proof liability and compulsive liability insurance together.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제40권
• /
• pp.97-144
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to review the text of national legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air in major states such as United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China, and to compare the air carrier's liability under the national legislations of above states with them under the Warsaw System relating to the international carriage by air. Also this paper reviews the text of the draft legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage was adopted in 1929. In 1999, the ICAO adopted the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air vastly modernizing the unification of private air law. The Montreal Convention replaced the instruments of the “Warsaw System”, and came into force on 4 November 2003. The Montreal Convention is not only an international convention. It has also exercised a considerable influence on national legislation. A the Convention, or certain of its principles, with the object of regulating their national air transport. The main feature of the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention is the two-tier liability system for death or injury of the passenger with strict liability up to 100,000 SDR and presumptive liability with a reversed burden of proof without any limit above that threshold. The principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention have been adopted into national legislations by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China. Now the Ministry of Justice of Korea is proceeding to make a new national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in respect of the carriage by air. The draft legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Code of Korea has adopted the main principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention. In conclusion, the national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in Korea will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.9-56
• /
• 2008

The medical practice does not always get a satisfatory result since the disease progress of patients are depended on patients' physical constitution and the doctors cannot control the outcomes about patients' physiological and biological reaction after the treatment. Moreover, the medical practice may bring wrong result fatalistically because of the unpredictablility of life. To demand for compensation of the damage to the doctors about these wrong result, the patient side holds the burden of proof that is between medical practice and demage, and there is damage from doctor's malpractice according to the accepted theory about the fundamental principle of distribution of the burden of proof. This falls not only under the liability of Tort Law, but also liability of Contract Law. However, the patient may be in difficult situation to prove the malpractice of doctors since he or she cannot recognize the facts because he or she was in unconscious while the medical practice was conducted, or they cannot judge precisely even though they recognize the facts. Nevertheless, the lawsuits against medical malpractice are the field that never achieves the equality of arms since the most of the evidence belong to the doctor's side. Hence, to maintain the principle of the equality of arms under the constitution, the theory leads to alleviate the burden of proof that patients hold. However, the doctors cannot be asked for the burden of proof that they conduct medical practice without errors. Because the doctors may experience difficulty to prove their innocence as the patients because of the unique characteristic that medical practices have. Therefore, the methods of the alleviation of the patient's burden of proof should have the equality of arms and the equal opportunity between the patients and the doctors with the evaluation of the justifiable interest from both the patients and the doctors. As the methods of the alleviation of the burden of proof, the alleviation of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof or resolutely the conversion of the burden may be considered. However, Recognizing the exception from general principle with converting the burden of proof is not proper in principle because the doctors may experience difficulty of the proof as the patients may have. If the difficulty of proof can be resolved by alleviating of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof, it is more desirable resolution rather than converting the burden of proof.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.83-122
• /
• 2014

Compared with medical cases and health care law from other countries there has been a lot of progress on medical law, especially on medical precedents in Korea. However, in recent years, medical precedents tend to reflect a realistic position of health care providers, rather than normative position of the victim. The burden of proof to prove strict liability is given to patients in civil law suits by courts, patients generally has the burden of proof. The rate of claims to prove the negligence of medical malpractice is falling significantly. Even if the error is acknowledged, it is not enough to get right to be relief for patients by increasing limitations of liability or ratio of patient's own negligence. Compensation fee is included in medical fees and risk of medical malpractice actions contributes ultimately to a health care consumer. In conclusion, author represents a major the new upgrade of above mentioned problem. By advising that court should assess actively for the perspective of victim for medical negligence we will be able to exercise remedies of patients' rights and to prevent recurring medical accidents and also contribute to medical advances.