• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.125-153
• /
• 2023

The Supreme Court's en banc decision on December 12, 2022 (docket number 2016Do21314) presented a new standard for determining whether the use of diagnostic medical devices by Korean medical doctors constitutes oriental medical doctors constitutes unlicensed medical practice. Based on this standard, it was determined that the use of ultrasound by Korean medical doctors was not an unlicensed medical practice. Supreme Court's Decision 2016Du51405 on August 18, 2023, is the first case in which a new standard was applied to determine that an Korean medical doctor's use of electroencephalography to diagnose Parkinson's disease and dementia was not an unlicensed medical practice. The Supreme Court abolished the previous standard that Western medical knowledge and technology should not be required for Korean medical doctors to use medical devices. However, it was unclear whether Western medical diagnosis of Korean medical doctors using diagnostic medical devices would be viewed as an an auxiliary method of diagnosis. Parkinson's disease and dementia are Western medical diagnoses. The Supreme Court judged that the Western medical diagnosis of Korean medical doctors was not an unlicensed medical practice. This clearly explains what an auxiliary method of diagnosis means. In addition, the Supreme Court excluded the principles of development and production of electroencephalography from its judgment criteria. Automatic extraction and automatic reading of test results were also excluded. The criminal court's view that the meaning of oriental medical practice should be clearly and strictly interpreted from the perspective of an oriental doctor, and it was clarified that diagnostic medical devices were excluded from criminal punishment unless it was clear that they were not related to the principle of oriental medical practice. As a result, the Supreme Court made it clear that the use of diagnostic medical devices is excluded from criminal punishment unless it is clear that they are not related to the principles of Korean medicine.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2016.07a
• /
• pp.141-143
• /
• 2016

2016년 5월 19일 대법원은 전원합의체판결에서 부동산 매수자가 본인 명의로 소유권이전등기를 하지 않고 등기를 매도인에게서 직접 명의수탁자로 이전하는 제3자간 명의신탁(중간생략등기형 명의신탁)의 경우 명의수탁자가 신탁부동산을 임의로 처분하여도 형사처벌를 할 수 없다는 판결을 하였다. 본 논문에서는 민법과 형법의 교차영역인 명의신탁에서 민사사건의 형사화를 지양했다는 점에서 긍정적인 평가를 하지만 이에 따른 관련법의 정비를 통한 법개정을 제안한다. 즉, 명의신탁에 관한 법제 간 모순을 극복하기 위해 '부동산 실권리자명의 등기에 관한 법률'의 개정이 요구된다. 또한 부동산소유자가 그 등기명의를 타인에게 신탁하기로 하는 명의신탁약정을 맺고 그 등기명의를 명의수탁자에게 이전하는 소위 2자간 명의신탁의 경우도 비범죄화를 함으로써 법체계의 논리성과 통일성을 확보할 필요가 있다.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.460-469
• /
• 2020

Recently, the Supreme Court pointed out that it would be difficult to maintain the existing opinion any more because the overall conditions that were the basis of the past empirical rule were remarkably changed when estimating the lost earnings of a deceased minor. Thus, the court sentenced en banc decision to extend the maximum working age of manual laborers under the empirical rule to 65 years old. The significance of this ruling is to put an end to social confusion caused by courts' different sentences on the maximum working age under the empirical rule depending on lower court decision, and also to acknowledge the maximum working age of physical laborers by applying the new empirical rule in accordance with entering the aged society. It is still unfortunate to conclude the maximum working age as a specific age and also to estimate the lost earnings of a victim by applying the daily wages of urban laborers. Like this, this study aimed to provide the basic data for guaranteeing a proper compensation for damage to victims by analyzing the issues of rulings related to the maximum working age of manual laborers under the empirical rule, and then complementing imperfections in Korean society that has entered the aged society.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.22 no.8
• /
• pp.392-402
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to examine the protection of third parties of the transactions made by the representative director without resolution adopted by the board of directors. The legal effect of a transaction conducted by a representative director without board resolution in violation of internal restriction or statutory restriction is at issue. The Supreme Court of Korea('SCK') made a new ruling that revised the prior case law(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da45451, Feb. 18, 2021). The SCK in the subject case proclaimed a legal doctrine that 'a third party acting in good faith' shall be protected according to Article 389(3) and 209(2) of the Korean Commercial Act, except that 'a third party with gross negligence' is considered as 'a person acting in bad faith' and thus is excluded from protection. The subject case law can be evaluated as broadening the scope of protection of the third party. In addition, the subject case is meaningful in that it is balance with the related SCK ruling, which considered a third party with gross negligence as a person acting in bad faith while protecting a third party with ordinary negligence in the case of transactions involving apparent representative directors, etc.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2023

The Supreme Court en banc decision on December 12, 2022 (docket number 2016Do21314) ruled that the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia by an oriental medical doctor using a diagnostic ultrasound device was not an unlicensed medical practice for an oriental medical doctor, which shall be scrutinized by the article 27 (1) of the Korean Medical Service Act. This ruling did not determine that a specific medical practice, especially diagnosis, based on the radiology, which is a part of western medicine, was not an unlicensed medical practice for an oriental medical doctor. Rather, it intended to clarify that the prosecutor should specify and prove the way of diagnosis and he should not prosecute mere the use of a diagnostic ultrasound device itself. To that extent, the ruling is agreeable because, as the oriental medicine community has argued, there is no regulation prohibiting the use of certain devices. It is probable, however, that the way of diagnosis established in radiology, which is a part of western medicine, was actually used in the case. In that case, there is undeniably an unlicensed medical practice for an oriental medical doctor. While many of the cases where the demarcation between (western) medicine and oriental medicine have been problematized thus far have been experimental treatment in nature, the above practice of using ultrasound appears to be frequently done in many oriental clinics, and so it is necessary to cope with the possibility of a disguised unlicensed medical practice. Another problem is the prevention of unfair practice or the protection of medical consumers. In fact, many oriental medical clinics' practice appear to have a tendency of inducing medical consumers' misunderstanding that a diagnosis based on radiology, which is a part of western medicine, were provided. It is hard to respond to this problem with demarcation between (western) medicine and oriental medicine. A new regulation against unfair practice might be necessary to implement.