• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.123-163
• /
• 2014

As results of analyzing judicial precedents about infection in hospitals in connection with mistakes and causality in medical litigations shows that the Mitigation of Law Principles To Prove responsibility in medical litigation has not been able to play its role compared to its intended purposes. And Major sentiment from those judgments is that a mistake can't be proved only by the fact that certain infection in hospital occurred in connection with hospital infection. Therefore, the number of indirect facts to deny estimation is overwhelmingly high. Like this, especially for hospital infection which is difficult to prove indirect facts themselves to estimate mistake, major sentiment from those judgments have a problem that impute sharing of losses caused by hospital infection to patient. In accordance with the Principles of equitable and proper sharing of losses, it's required to prepare legal interpretation and theoretical methods to largely mitigate patient's responsibility to prove medical mistakes compared to other medical litigations in connection with existing Mitigation of Law Principles To Prove responsibility and conventional theory of estimation. In connection with this, the results of review that duty of safety management in hospital infection cases can be the base of conversion of proving responsibility, the duty that prevent hospital infection, corresponding the duty of safety management in hospital infection is not conventional duty of safety management based on duty of good faith but secondary obligation of medical contract. The breach of duty preventing hospital infection is the violation of medical contract, but there is no logical necessity that convert proving responsibility from the obligation of contract itself. Therefore, the duty of preventing hospital infection from the obligation of medical contract, corresponding the duty of safety management in hospital infection cases cannot be the base of conversion of proving responsibility alone. But, it's still required to conversion of proving responsibility in hospital infection, we need further studies on cases of Germany which applies legal estimation of proving responsibilities in hospital infection.

• 한국주거학회논문집
• /
• 제5권2호
• /
• pp.129-139
• /
• 1994

This study is primarily concerned with the apartment house manager's duty of korea and England. The results are as follows ; 1. In England, detailed duty is prescribed to apartment house managers, where as Korea has not specific prescription. Therefore, we suggest 7 items as the management duty of apartment house manager. Namely, that is inhabitant management, external duty management, business management, account management, estate and public institution management, environment management and safety management. 2. In England, apartment house manager is executing their duty before moving into. But in Korea, their management duty is executed after moving into. There are problems which each of them(inhabitant-user-manager) has plural responsibility.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.317-343
• /
• 2014

In order to account for whether a doctor should indemnify damages resulted from violation of duty of care, the fact that a doctor violated duty of care, that damages were incurred, and the link between violation of duty of care and damages incurred, respectively, should be verified. So even though a doctor violated duty of care to patients, he or she will not bear the responsibility to indemnify damages unless it is not verified. If a doctor's negligence in medical practices is assessed that obviously unfaithful medical practice far exceeds the limit of admission of a patient, it will not go against people's general perception of justice or law and order to constitute a medical malpractice itself as an illegal action that will require liabiliy for damage. However, when the limit of admission is set too low, a patient's benefit and expectation of proper medical treatment can be violated. In contrast, if the limit of admission is set high, it can leave too little room for doctors' discretion for treatments due to a bigger risk of indemnification for damages. Thus, a reasonable balance that can satisfy both benefit and expectation of patients and doctors' right to treatment is needed.

• 한국건설관리학회논문집
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.36-43
• /
• 2012

건설사업관리 방식을 도입하는 과정에서 건설사업관리자의 계약적 책임에 대하여 많은 논란이 있어 2002년 건설기술관리법에 손해배상 조항을 개정하였으며, 건설산업기본법에서도 건설사업관리자에게 선관의무를 부과하고 있다. 하지만 CM for Fee의 계약 방식의 경우 건설사업관리자는 컨설턴트 책임을 지니고 있지만, 국내 건설환경으로는 컨설턴트 책임범위에 대해서 명확하게 규정하지 못하고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 건설사업관리자의 컨설턴트 책임의 성격인 전문가적 책임 중 선량한 관리자의 주의의무에 대한 이론을 정리하고자 하였으며, 변호사 등 전문가 의무 등을 토대로 건설사업관리자의 선관주의 의무 항목을 제시하여 건설사업관리자에 대한 책임문제를 진단할 수 있는 기초를 제공하고자 하였다. 도출된 항목에 대한 검증을 위해 전문가를 대상으로 인터뷰조사를 실시하여 중요도를 산정하였다.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.168-179
• /
• 2007

There are many students in school. So school safety accidents are happened by accident. But, if teachers know and understand about school safety accidents exactly, the school safety accidents can be reduced. The conclusion of this study is as follow. First, generally teacher has a duty and responsibility to protect and care students in educational activities. And teacher has a responsibility to protect and care students only in the cases of predictability. Second, teacher must do his/her best about a duty of attention. If teacher do his/her best about a duty of attention, he(she) has not the responsibility about the accident. Third, teacher needs to have more concern student who has a controversial figure. And teacher needs to have an evidence that he/she did his/her best for the student ordinary times. Fourth, the criteria of teacher's legal or illegal punishment to students is (1) the motivation and details for punishment, (2) the methods and degree for punishment, (3) a part of body for punishment, (4) the degree of damage for punishment. Fifth, teacher need to learn the program about school safety accidents systematically.

• 한국항공운항학회지
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.45-51
• /
• 2011

The article specified in aviation legislation, 'The captain has the final authority and responsibility in flight safety' could be one reason running counter to applying "Vertrauensgrundsatz". In practice, however, captains do not have professional skills in every task and they should distribute duties and responsibilities to flight attendents and other staffs to operate the flight as safely and efficiently as possible. Therefore, in aviation, fair criterion, namely, "Vertrauensgrundsatz" is necessary to balance between efficiency and legal interest for participants. In addition, when it comes to mutual trust of duty which was the starting point of this study, the standard in mutual advice or interference must be based on the duty specified in air law and flight regulations. Also, pervasive trust will not only be attributed to joint responsibility but an act that cannot be trusted.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.83-108
• /
• 2006

Regarding the ocean carrier's responsibility for damage indemnification, both his or her duty of care and reason of legal exemption have been considered important. The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Bills of Lading also provides that the ocean carrier indemnifies for the loss or damage of freight on the basis of the principle of liability with fault. In other words, the carrier assumes responsibility only for the loss or damage of freight which is under his or her control and whose safety must be carefully maintained by him or her. The carrier's duty of care which is required for freight safety in accordance with the convention is associated with two themes, seaworthiness of vessel and freight itself. To make ocean freight shipping effective necessities the seaworthiness of the ship that will conduct the shipping service under its responsibility. This will ultimately lead to making the service impressive to the shipper as freight owner. Thus the purpose of this study is to contribute to more reasonable shipping by the shipowner or the carrier who needs to ensure seaworthiness of vessel, and prevent unseaworthiness that may be incurred in accordance with freight characteristics. For the purpose, this paper reviewed the meaning of seaworthiness of vessel through a juridical approach to its causal relationship with ocean freight shipping.

• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.105-111
• /
• 2016

Circulating various pieces of unlawful information that violate the law by leaking personal information or circulating violent/sexual materials or malignant programs in the cyberspace is unlawful, and blocking this beforehand is an important duty of the state. Preceding discussions on the legal restriction of unlawful information in the cyberspace have mostly been focused on the criminal responsibilities and civil responsibilities of information communications service providers, but this study has approached it with emphasis on the issue of police responsibility for the exercise of police authority to block unlawful information. It is because the principles of police responsibility to determine the target of police authority to block unlawful information provide the standards for the interpretation of existing laws and regulations and function as legislative principles for the enactment of new laws and regulations to prevent risks in the cyberspace.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.133-170
• /
• 2022

대법원 2021. 7. 29. 선고 2018다228486 판결은 책임능력 있는 정신질환자의 보호의무자의 감독의무 위반으로 인한 손해배상책임의 근거를 민법 제750조로 명시하였다. 이 판결은 보호의무자가 구 정신보건법에 따라 정신질환자에 대한 감독의무를 부담함을 근거로, 보호의무자에게 민법 제750조에 따른 감독의무 소홀로 인한 불법행위책임의 성립을 인정하고 있다. 그러나 '감독할 법정의무'를 명문의 규정으로 요구하는 민법 제755조 제1항의 경우와 달리, 민법 제750조는 일반 불법행위책임을 규정하고 있을 뿐이므로, 민법 제750조에 따라 감독의무 위반으로 인한 불법행위책임을 인정하기 위해서는, 감독의무의 근거가 반드시 법률일 것을 요하지 아니한다. 이 경우 사회상규나 조리, 신의칙, 형평의 원칙에 의해서도 감독의무를 인정할 수 있다. 보호의무자의 감독의무는 정신질환자의 행동으로 인한 모든 결과를 방지해야 하는 일반적인 의무가 아니라 합리적으로 제한된 범위에서의 의무이다. 따라서 보호의무자가 피보호자인 정신질환자가 타인을 위해할 가능성이 있다는 구체적인 위험을 인지하였는데도 대비를 하지 않은 경우와 같이 정신질환자의 행위에 관해서 책임을 묻는 것이 타당한 객관적 상황이 인정되는지 여부에 따라 개별적으로 판단하여야 한다. 정신건강증진 및 정신질환자 복지서비스 지원에 관한 법률에 따른 보호의무자에게는 피감독자에 대한 일반적인 자상타해방지감독의무까지 인정하기는 어렵다고 할 것이나, 보호의무자가 입원신청을 하였으나 정신건강의학과전문의가 입원등이 필요하다고 진단하지 않은 경우나 정신의료기관등의 장은 입원등을 받아들이지 않은 경우 및 정신질환자의 행동에 대해 보호의무자에게 구체적인 예견가능성이 없다고 판단될 경우에는 보호의무자의 감독의무 위반 자체가 없다고 보아야 하며, 설혹 감독의무 위반이 있다고 하더라도 정신질환자의 불법행위로 인한 손해와의 사이에 인과관계가 존재하지 않는다고 보아야 할 것이다.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제16권4호
• /
• pp.125-150
• /
• 2014

국제해상운송에서 위험화물의 운송량은 꾸준하게 증가하고 있다. 이에 따라 각 국제협정들도 위험화물에 대한 규정을 신설하거나 개정하고 있는 추세이다. 특히 연료와 같은 위험화물의 운송은 필연적으로 발생할 수밖에 없기 때문에, 위험화물에 대한 정의와 범위에 대한 중요성이 부각되고 있다. 또한 위험화물에 대한 당사자 간의 책임이 위험화물에 대한 통지와 운송인의 인지여부에 따라 상이하게 나타나고 있으며, 이와 관련된 판결들이 사건별로 다양한 형태로 나타나고 있다. 특히 운송규칙의 책임조항에서 위험화물에 대한 운송인의 인지여부에 따라 송화인의 책임과 면책 범위가 상반된 형태로 나타난 것을 살펴볼 수 있었다. 본 논문에서는 먼저 선행연구를 통하여 위험화물의 정의와 범위를 분석하였다. 두 번째로 운송인의 위험화물 인지여부에 관한 판결들에 대한 분석을 통하여 통일성 있는 조항 해석의 필요성을 살펴보았다. 위험화물은 특별한 특징을 가진 화물로서 당사자 간의 책임과 면책에 대해서 일반조항과 달리 해석되어질 필요가 있다. 일반화물일 경우 단순히 과실여부에 따라 책임을 물을 수 있고, 당사자 간의 의무의 범위가 구체적으로 정해질 수 있다. 하지만 위험화물일 경우에는 당사자 간의 구체적인 조항이 명시되지 않는다면, 위험에 따른 의무를 부담해야 할 당사자가 상황에 따라 누구의 책임인지 혼란을 야기할 수 있다. 따라서 위험화물의 인지여부에 관한 판례들을 분석함으로서 위험화물조항의 적용을 위한 통일적인 기준의 필요성과 해결방안을 제시하였다.