• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.63-101
• /
• 2020

'Flight safety zone' means a zone that the Minister of National Defense designates under Articles 4 and 6 of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act (hereinafter 'PMBIA') for the safety of flight during takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. The purpose of flight safety zone is to contribute to the national security by providing necessary measures for the protection of military bases and installations and smooth conduct of military operations. In this case, when the state set and used the flight safety zone, the landowner claimed restitution of unjust enrichment against the country. This article is an analysis based on the existing legal theory regarding the legitimacy of plaintiff's claim, and the summary of the discussion is as follows. A person who without any legal ground derives a benefit from the property or services of another and thereby causes loss to the latter shall be bound to return such benefit (Article 741 of the Civil Act). Since the subject matter is an infringing profit, the defendant must prove that he has a legitimate right to retain the profit. The State reserves the right to use over the land designated as a flight safety zone in accordance with legitimate procedures established by the PMBIA for the safe takeoff and landing of military aircrafts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State gained an unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent over the land without legal cause. Expropriation, use or restriction of private property from public necessity and compensation therefor shall be governed by Act: provided, that in such a case, just compensation shall be paid (Article 23 (1) of the Constitution of The Republic of KOREA). Since there is not any provision in the PMBIA for loss compensation for the case where a flight safety zone is set over land as in this case, next question would be whether or not it is unconstitutional. Even if it is designated as a flight safety zone and the use and profits of the land are limited, the justification of the purpose of the flight safety zone system, the appropriateness of the means, the minimization of infringement, and the balance of legal interests are still recognized; thus just not having any loss compensation clause does not make the act unconstitutional. In conclusion, plaintiff's claim for loss compensation based on the 'Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for land, etc. for Public Works Projects', which has no provision for loss compensation due to public limits, is unjust.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.299-346
• /
• 2016

There were also various decisions made in medical area in 2015. In the case that an inmate in a sanatorium was injured due to the reason which can be attributable to the sanatorium and the social welfare foundation that operates the sanatorium request treatment of the patient, the court set the standard of fixation of a party in medical contract. In the case that the family of the patient who was declared brain dead required withdrawal of meaningless life sustaining treatment but the hospital rejected and continued the treatment, the court made a decision regarding chargeable fee for such treatment. When it comes to the eye brightening operation which received measure of suspension from the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the first time in February, 2011, because of uncertainty of its safety, the court did not accept the illegality of such operation itself, however, ordered compensation of the whole damage based on the violation of liability for explanation, which is the omission of explanation about the fact that the cost-effectiveness is not sure as it is still in clinical test stage. There were numerous cases that courts actively acknowledged malpractices; in the cases of paresis syndrome after back surgery, quite a few malpractices during the surgery were acknowledged by the court and in the case of nosocomial infection, hospital's negligence to cause such nosocomial infection was acknowledged by the court. There was a decision which acknowledged malpractice by distinguishing the duty of installation of emergency equipment according to the Emergency Medical Service Act and duty of emergency measure in emergency situations, and a decision which acknowledged negligence of a hospital if the hospital did not take appropriate measures, although it was a very rare disease. In connection with the scope of compensation for damage, there were decisions which comply with substantive truth such as; a court applied different labor ability loss rate as the labor ability loss rate decreased after result of reappraisal of physical ability in appeal compared to the one in the first trial, and a court acknowledged lower labor ability loss rate than the result of appraisal of physical ability considering the condition of a patient, etc. In the event of any damage caused by malpractice, in regard to whether there is a limitation on liability in fee charge after such medical malpractice, the court rejected the hospital's claim for setoff saying that if the hospital only continued treatments to cure the patient or prevent aggravation of disease, the hospital cannot charge Medical bills to the patient. In regard to the provision of the Medical Law that prohibit medical advertisement which was not reviewed preliminarily and punish the violation of such, a decision of unconstitutionality was made as it is a precensorship by an administrative agency as the deliberative bodies such as Korean Medical Association, etc. cannot be denied to be considered as administrative bodies. When it comes to the issue whether PRP treatment, which is commonly performed clinically, should be considered as legally determined uninsured treatment, the court made it clear that legally determined uninsured treatment should not be decided by theoretical possibility or actual implementation but should be acknowledged its medical safety and effectiveness and included in medical care or legally determined uninsured treatment. Moreover, court acknowledged the illegality of investigation method or process in the administrative litigation regarding evaluation of suitability of sanatorium, however, denied the compensation liability or restitution of unjust enrichment of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service and the National Health Insurance Corporation as the evaluation agents did not cause such violation intentionally or negligently. We hope there will be more decisions which are closer to substantive truth through clear legal principles in respect of variously arisen issues in the future.