• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.129-149
• /
• 2016

Medical dispute means the dispute between the hospital and the patient due to a medical accident. In general, medical accidents must be in accordance with the terms that are used in the medical dispute adjustment method stated in Article 2 (definition). In relation to this, there is a need to discuss an efficient operation scheme for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in medical disputes. In addition, it is necessary to look at issues of civil liability and criminal liability. In particular, in the consumer dispute arbitration committee, there is a case to make a "decision not to adjust" in aggressive intervention in the process of conflict resolution. The medical staff, on the basis of its "decision," can use this as a proven material for civil and criminal cases. This is rather upon the determination of the consumer council as a typical side effect to defend the user's perspective. This is the "decision" as was expressed from an order, "not adjusted." It is also determined to be easy and clearly timely. In the medical litigation, it is requesting the burden of proof of a patient's cause-and-effect relationship with the doctors committing negligence and medical malpractice. This seems to require the promotion of legislation in the direction to reduce future cases. It is determined that the burden of proof of medical accidents must be improved. The institution receiving the medical accident should prevent a closure report. Further, it is necessary to limit the transition to a franchise point. In this paper, we understand the problems of the current medical dispute resolution system, trying to establish a medical dispute resolution system desirable through an efficient alternative. In addition, it wants help in the protection and realization in medical consumers' and patients' rights. The relevant authorities will take advantage of these measures. After all, this could contribute to the system for a smooth resolution of a medical dispute.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• 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.

• 월간경쟁저널
• /
• 113호
• /
• pp.15-31
• /
• 2005

최근 미국의 법원은 담합을 입증하려는 시도를 주로 경제적 증거에 입각하여 분석하는 추세를 보여 왔다. 하지만 담합의 존재를 입증하는데 있어서 경제분석의 역할에도 많은 이견이 날카롭게 표출되었다. 담합의 존재에 관한 경제적 증거를 분석하는 데에 있어 유일한 합리적 근거는 최신과점이론(Modern oligopoly theory)이다. 그런데 증인으로 나선 많은 경제학자들과 법원이 최신과점이론에 자신들의 분석을 뚜렷이 기초하지 않았기 때문에, 판례법의 현 상태가 불만족스럽다고 주장하는 것이 본 논문의 핵심적 내용이다. 셔먼법 제1조는 ''계약, 결합, 공모(contract, combination, or conspiracy)에 의해 초래되는 거래(즉 경쟁)의 불합리한 제한을 규제''하는데, 이러한 계약 결합, 공모의''용어들은 합의라는 하나의 개념으로 통합하여 이해''할 수 있다. 제 1조는 다수의 당사자가 ''단일한 목적, 공통된 의도와 의견의 일치, 혹은 의사의 합치(Meeting of minds)'', 즉 ''공통된 계획에 대한 의식적 참가(consious commitment to a common scheme)''를 합의한 모든 협약을 규제한다. 셔먼법 제 1조 위반을 입증하기 위해서는 일치된 행동이 합의 하에서 일어났음을 입증해야 한다. 미국 법원은 합의를 추론할 수 있는 증거력 있는 정황증거(admissible circumstantial evidence)의 원칙을 확립하였다. 독점가격에 가까운 수준의 과점가격 설정은 ''조정되었다(coordinated)''라고 칭해지는데, 이는 ''구두 합의''와 ''암묵적 합의''의 두 가지 형태로 나뉜다. 한편, 일회게임 과점 모형과 반복게임 모형은 과점이론의 핵심을 이룬다. 과점에 대한 Chamberlin의 견해는 본래 게임과 Stigler의 모형은 그와 같은 생각의 오류를 가르쳤다. 그러나 판례법은, Petroleum products antitrust litigation사건과 reserve supply사건에서 볼 수 있듯이 종종 그러한 교훈을 망각했다. 최신과정이론과 판례를 종합해 보면, 합의의 존재에 관해 경제학자가 이끌어내는 추론과 법원이 이끌어내는 추론을 포괄하는 다음의 네 가지 일반적 원칙이 도출된다. 1. 합의가 추론되기 위해서는 상호의존성을 넘는 무언가가 먼저 제시되어야 한다. 2. 합의의 존재는 일회게임 과점 모형에서의 비협조적 내쉬균형과 일치하는 행동으로부터는 추론될 수 없다. 3. 합의의 존재는, 비록 무한반복 과점게임에서의 비협조적 내쉬균형(혹은 Chamberlin-Fellner식의 과점)과 일치하더라도, 일회게임 과점 모형에서의 비협조적 내쉬균형과 일치하지 않는 행동으로부터 추론될 수 있다. 4. 증거는 구두합의의 존재를 뒷받침해야만 한다. 이러한 원칙에서 얻을 수 있는 가장 중요한 교훈은, 합의가 존재하지 않을 경우 과점상황으로부터는 독점가격이 예상될 수 없다는 사실을 법원이 인식하는 것만으로도 합의의 추론에서 범하기 쉬운 가장 큰 오류를 회피할 수 있다는 것이다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제41권
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2009

To understand the procedure of international commercial transaction clearly and logically, this author would like to emphasize the contractual approach in this paper. The main contract in the transaction is the contract of sale; to perform this contract, the three subordinate or supporting contracts(including the contract of carriage, the contracts of insurance and the contract of payment) should be followed and performed. In the contract of sale, besides the express Terms, the trade Terms have very comprehensive meanings. Each trade term in Incoterms(2000) deals with the matters relating to the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract of sale with respect to the delivery of the goods sold. It also provides for the duties of seller or buyer relating to the contract of carriage, the contract of insurance and the payment in the process of the delivery of goods. Especially, it does not provide the methods of payment concretely, but it imposes the seller to hand over the documents evidencing the conformity of the contract of sale, and the delivery which includes the documents of carriage and/or insurance. Thus although the trade Terms deal with the obligations of the seller or buyer directly, they are very closely related with the contract of carriage and the contract of insurance indirectly, and also with contract of payment using the documentary draft. For the Arbitration or the litigation in the case of the breach of contract, the trade Terms play very significant roles. When an arbitrator or a judge decides the case, they should understand each obligation clearly, in which case, the trade terms give answers about who is wrong or who is right. Therefore, the contractual approach focusing on the trade terms would give very fruitful advantages to the students or teachers in understanding the procedure of the international commercial transaction systematicly and comprehensively.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.309-334
• /
• 2012

Although the number of foreign patients visiting Korea for medical treatments or plastic surgery is rapidly increasing, countermeasures against unforeseen medical disputes involving foreign patients are adequate. To date, the record shows that most foreign patients have visited doctors at the departments of family medicine, internal medicine, dermatology (incl. plastic surgery), and healthcare centers, which, fortunately, indicates that there are not many severe, high risk patients. However, if the current growth rate continues to rise and the number of foreign patients visiting each department continues to grow, more diverse medical practices will be likely to take place in the future, and consequently, it is expected that the possibilities of medical malpractice and the costs of dispute resolution will also rise dramatically. When a medical dispute occurs, in general, a lawsuit is ultimately settled by the court. However, since this can damage the creditworthiness of medical institutions and also incur significant litigation costs, which is a typical characteristic of a medical lawsuit, medical professionals or institutions will be heavily burdened. Furthermore, an adequate policy or countermeasure against a medical dispute with a foreign patient has not yet been established, and it would be difficult to resolve a dispute by finding the middle ground, due to relative standards and policies between countries. Now, we need to improve the existing policies and prepare for countermeasures that will allow us to precisely predict the nature of such disputes, which have been increasing, and resolve them peacefully. Based on such knowledge, this study aims to establish countermeasures against medical disputes with foreign patients, and examine ways to promptly and reasonably resolve them at an early stage.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.85-113
• /
• 2009

In this paper, the Judgment 2007DA76290 of the Korean Supreme Court was analysed in two points of the legal theory and litigation. The judgment arouses some issues of medical malpractice liability. They includes the concept of the complications and permanent lesion and the difference between them, some problems in a judge's applying the requirements for the physician's tort liability to the medical malpractice situations, the theory of obligation de moyens related with the burden of proof of the negligent conduct for a physician's liability for misperformance of contract, the influence of a patient's physical conditions on the physician's liability, the breach of duty to disclose in selecting the safer one of the treatment methods bringing about the complications or leaving the permanent lesion and so on. In the situations of the case referred to above, the plaintiff should have tried to establish that a reasonable physician in the specific situation of the case would have substituted the safer method of treatment for the method in the case. If the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing it, he or she could have recovered even the physical harm resulting from the permanent lesion brought about by the complications of the specific treatment in the case. The plaintiff failed to do so and recovered only the emotional distress which the patient suffered owing to the physician's breach of the duty to disclose. Therefore the legal malpractice of the counsel might be found in this case.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.323-352
• /
• 1998

Documentary letters of credit including standby letters of credit are governed by the independence or abstraction rule and the doctrine of strict compliance. Since the former rule requires the issuing bank to honor the drafts regardless of the defective performance of the underlying contract, the applicant(the customer) will be without a remedy if he is unable to make himself whole by litigation on the underlying contract. Therefore, the applicant is exposed to a risk much higher than in the commercial letters of credit. The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit(UCP) has no provisions allowing legal relief for the applicant on the abuse of L/C by unscrupulous beneficiary, but UCC ${\S}5-114$ has provision allowing injunctive relief for the applicant. In this paper, I attempted to clarify certain standards of injunctive relief available for the customer in the credit. When there is fraud in the L/C transaction by any of the parties concerned, we must weigh the principle of independence or abstraction and the fraud rules. According to banking practice and judicial precedence, we need not keep the principle of independence and abstaction even in fraudulent transaction and the bona fide sufferer must be protected. The purpose of this paper is to review the studies of Fraud rule and the Injunction and to suggest the applicable standards for the Injunction therory under letters of credit. Specially this paper analysed the following ; (1) the guideline for the fraud (exception) rule to the autonomy principle, (2) the appilcable standards of the Injunction, and (3) the implications on parties concerned in letters of credit transaction. Conclusively, the Injunction should be granted if (1) there is clear proof of fraud (2) the fraud constitutes fraudulent abuse if the independent purpose of L/C (3) irreparble injury might follow if injunction is not granted or the recovery of damages would be seriously endangered.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.87-105
• /
• 2015

Intellectual property law is slowly fighting to keep pace with the rapid growth of the fashion industry. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, even in the US and other top fashion nations, forcing designers and fashion companies to rely on their trademarks to protect their work. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems as witnessed in a recent Christian Louboutin case, leading the parties to resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution(ODR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, are increasingly emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry (CFDA in the US case) should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members, both fashion designers and corporations alike, can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem In particular, for the US fashion industry, the ongoing Innovative Design Protection and Privacy Prevention Act(IDPPPA) anti-counterfeit legislation could have caused a chilling effect against innovation. New designers with no name and less resources who could normally flourish producing inspired-by designs may find themselves subject to copyright infringement legislation since the IDPPPA may expand the protection of established designers and brands with more resources. This fear and its implication could be solved by the fashion industry itself since fashion experts know best how to handle these fast-paced issues arising in the field. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to protecting innovation within fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an ADR process. This can mitigate the uncertainty created by the IDPPPA or any other legislation from elsewhere, which could result in a shying away from experimentation with inspired-by designs.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.49-72
• /
• 2009

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), one of the Government agencies, has been preparing a standard model form of Exclusive Contract for Entertainment Management (hereinafter referred to as "Exclusive Contract") to eliminate some types of unfairness that placed entertainers at disadvantage such as forced PR activities or activities without payment, excessive privacy infringement, and exemption of payment after the termination of the exclusive contract. The said Exclusive Contract was drafted by The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (the "KCAB") in association with the Korean Entertainment Law Society (the "KELS") and KCAB has persistently persuaded Corea Entertainment Management Association (the "CEMA"; mainly actors management) and Korea Entertainment Producers' Association (the "KEPA"; mainly singers management) to adopt the above-mentioned Exclusive Contract, respectively, and especially arbitration clause instead of litigation. After KCAB's tens of meetings and persuasion, they finally decided to accept KCAB's offer and they have submitted the Exclusive Contract drafted by KCAB and KELS to KFTC on April 17, 2009. The arbitration clause drafted by KCAB was already accepted by unfair contract examination division and unfair contract advisory committee and the final standard model contract was supposed to be publicly announced on June 30, 2009 after final examination of unfair contract standing committee, but the announcement has been delayed owing to severe controversies between the concerned parties, such as CEMA, KAU (Korea Artists' Union), KEPA and KSA (Korea Singers' Association) related to delicate issues like contract period and ownership of intellectual properties, etc. But it is expected the announcement will be made very soon by which the contract will include the originally drafted arbitration clause by KCAB. Therefore, it is very timely to examine the various legal issues which can be arisen out of disputes, and arbitration appropriateness with Exclusive Contract of Entertainment Management on this paper.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.161-178
• /
• 2009

This article focuses on the enforceability of arbitration agreements m the dispute of standby letter of credit, especially with the case analysis of the leading case from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In Nova Hut a.s. v. Kaiser Group International Inc. case, while the underlying contract contained an arbitration clause, a guarantee to assure contractor's performance did not contain an arbitration clause. Nova Hut drew on the standby for the Contractor's failure to deliver contractual obligations. Against the Kaiser's action under US Bankruptcy law, Nova Hut moved to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, to compel arbitration, and to dismiss the complaint. The US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied Nova Hut's motions. On appeal, Kaiser argued that it was not subject to arbitration since it was not a party to the contract. It also argued that Nova Hut had waived its right to arbitration by filing a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding and commencing legal actions in other countries. The appeals court noted that in order to avoid arbitration on those grounds prejudice must be shown. It indicated that because there was no long delay in requesting arbitration and no discovery conducted m the course of litigation, the Kaiser could not demonstrate actual prejudice on the part of Owner. In light of public policy favoring arbitration, the nature of the claims in the parties' agreements, Kaiser's conduct in embracing the agreements, and their expectation of benefit, the appeals court ruled that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied in requiring the Parent to arbitrate.