• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.61-86
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has given thirty-nine time's judgments on enforcement of Arbitral awards for thirty-six arbitration cases and made four time's decision on the arbitration cases since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Most of the arbitration cases appealed to the Supreme Court was to obtain the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or to set aside the arbitral awards according to the Korea arbitration Act article 36 and article 37, by reason of (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity under the law applicable to him or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, (b) a party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (c) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. However, 5 cases of these arbitral awards were refused to obtain the enforcement of Arbitral awards and have been cancelled finally by the Supreme Court only by the New York Convention of 1958.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.3-20
• /
• 2011

An arbitrator is an impartial person chosen to decide the issue between parties engaged in a dispute. But the arbitrator appointed by a party or arbitration institution shall be impartial or independent and should disclose to the administrator any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. If, at any stage during the arbitration, new circumstances arise that may give rise to such doubts, the arbitrator shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the parties and to the administrator. Upon receipt of such information from an arbitrator or a party, an party must challenge any arbitrator whenever circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to arbitrator's impartiality or independence. Under these circumstance, there were two cases declared by the Korean Supreme Court in relation to the cancellation of the arbitration award. One arbitral case was cancelled for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without disclosure arbitrator's impartiality, and the other case was refused to cancel the ward for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without challenge an arbitrator. There are not, however, the standard to decide what is definitely the arbitrator's impartiality or independence and the difference on qualification between arbitrator chosen by an party and neutral arbitrator in korean arbitration law and rules. Nevertheless, korean court require arbitrator to be impartial and independent and the arbitration parties to challenge arbitrator' impartiality or independence.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.173-198
• /
• 2010

There is a system in Korea named "Advanced Practice Nurse System" qualified by the Minister of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs for Advanced Practice Nurse besides nurse licence. Medical practice is, in today's medical law, understood as a general concept colligating medical practice, nursing practice and midwife practice and so on, for it is defined as a deed of medical technique practiced by medical personnel. Referring to the fact that the Supreme Court recognizes medical personnel as people who have medical expert knowledge, nursing practice can be recognized as a region of medical business and therefore it is not necessary to prescribe nursing practice separately from the definition of medical practice on a precedent, because nurse belongs to medical personnel. According to the precedent regarding 'Unlicensed Medical Practice of Advanced Practice Nurse for Anesthesia' recently sentenced by the Supreme Court, the medical practice is only allowed a doctor because it is 'in need of special knowledge and experience because of high danger on human body' and it is judged to be an unlicensed medical practice prohibited in medical law if it is to be done by a nurse. When considering the actual situation that System for Advanced Practice Nurse for Anesthesia is established under the circumstance that an anesthetist is in want and therefore the operation has not been performed on time, and that it is being expected an anesthetist to be in need, it is necessary to legislate for the range of medical practice of Advanced Practice Nurse so that Advanced Practice Nurse System can be practically legalized, for the role of Advanced Practice Nurse has the great possibility of shrinking because the precedent has considered Advanced Practice Nurse for Anesthesia doing anesthetic operation in clinic today as a potential wrongdoer.

• Journal of Acupuncture Research
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.71-79
• /
• 2012

Objectives : The purpose of this study is to set the explanatory duty on traditional Korean medical(TKM) treatment by analyzing the judicial precedents. Methods : The study was performed by analyzing nine cases of lawsuits related to Korean medicine doctor and explanatory duty among the medical dispute cases in Korea from 1968 through 2012. Results : Nine closed claims occurred regarding the violation of explanatory duties in the field of TKM practice. Two claims were decided by supreme court, three were decided by high court, and four were decided by district court. The causes of lawsuits were categorized as follows : bee venom pharmacopuncture, herb treatment, and an explanation for safety. Conclusions : To perform an explanatory duty has important legal implications for the protection of patients' rights and Korean Medicine doctors' autonomy on TKM treatment.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.12 no.5
• /
• pp.188-198
• /
• 2012

Church is one of organizations recognized not as corporation but as private association and therefore its identity and possession of properties must be confirmed by the general theories of the civil law in relation not to corporation but to private association. Different from corporation, the internal relations of private association is primarily regulated by the articles of association. When there is no article of association, ordinary resolution and provisions for incorporated association in the civil law are applied by inference. As for the debt of private association, all the members own it in a quasi-joint manner (article 275 and 278). For the last 50 years, the judicial precedents of the Supreme Court has permitted the partition of church for the Protestant church and ruled that the relationship of properties at the time of partition is the joint ownership by church members at the time of partition. This ruling is different from that of corporation and ordinary principles of law. However, a new judicial precedent (the Supreme Court, 2006. 4. 20, 2004다37775) prescribes that different from corporation, the partition of private association is not allowed. Thus, in order to settle the dispute of private association, the Supreme Court changes its traditional standpoint of allowing partition into denying it. This ruling seems to reflect the necessity of settling dispute above all.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.263-305
• /
• 2009

Is it lawful to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment applied to a patient in a terminal condition or permanent unconscious condition? In Korea, there are no such laws or regulations which control affairs related to the withholding or withdrawal life-support treatment and active euthanasia as the Natural Death Act or the Death with Dignity Act in the U. S. A. And in addition there has had no precedent of Supreme Court. Recently Supreme Court has pronounced a historical judgment on a terminal care case. The court allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a permanent unconscious state. Fundamentally the court judged that the continuation of that medical treatment would infringe dignity and value of a patient as a human being. And the court required some legal grounds to consider such withdrawal or withholding of medical care lawful. The legal grounds are as follow. First, the patient is in a incurable and irreversible condition and already entered a stage of death. Second, the patient executed a directive, in advance, directing the withholding or withdrawal of life-support treatment in a incurable and irreversible condition or in a terminal condition. Otherwise, at least, the patient's will would be presumed through his/her character, view of value, philosophy, religious faith and career etc. I regard if a patient is in a incurable and irreversible condition or in a terminal condition, the medical contract between a patient and a doctor would be terminated because of the actual impossibility of achievement of it's purpose. So I think the discontinuation of life-sustaining care would be legally allowed without depending on the patient's own will.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.285-317
• /
• 2008

To accept the doctor's professional negligence in the medical malpractice, the mistakes, by which the doctor did not foresee the production of the results in spite of the possibility of foresight and did not avoid the production of the results in spite of the possibility of avoidance, must be considered, and to decide the presence of the doctor's professional negligence, the standard must be the attention standard of general-common doctor engaged in the same business and the same function, and the medical enviornments, the conditions, the extraordinary nature of medical behavior, and etc should be considered by the general level of medical science at the time of accident. This principlel must be applied to the medical malpractice case occurred being on duty without exception. But, because of the extraordinary nature of duty work, it is difficult for any doctor to do one's best technical practice by making all diagnosis, medical treatment with all the equipment on the same plane as the ordinary times. That cannot be also expected for any doctor to do one's best technical practice in the terms of a social idea. From this point of view looking into The Precedent case related to Medical-service person being on duty sentenced by The Supreme Court, unlike the general medical malpractice case, the presence of the professional negligence in the medical malpractice occurred being on duty seems to be decided with more consideration on the general level of medical science, the medical enviornments and the conditions, particularities of medical practice at the time of accident. Especially, the extraordinary nature of medical behavior of the medical service person being on duty in the emergency room seems to be admitted compared to that of the medical service person being on duty in ward.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.66 no.2
• /
• pp.31-49
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to analyze precedents related with child abuse for protection of the rights of the child. There should be the law related with 'punishment for child abuse,' which is the grounds of punishment, to make a precedent in the law punishing for 'child abuse,' but there is the concept only for 'child abuse' in the Child Welfare Law, the fundamental law; therefore, for a direct judgment for punishment, only precedents of 'child abuse' related with loss of parental rights and judgements for criminal cases, civil cases and laws covering special cases have been made. For that reason, 'the special law related with punishment for child abuse cases' is desperately required (On last December 23, 2013, the special law related with punishment for child abuse cases passed the National Assembly). Hence, precedent analysis had performed by grouping precedent from 2000 to 2013 which were not judged as child abuse in trial but can be regarded as child abuse. When analyzing each precedent according to the contents of analysis and judgment by fact relevance in this study, problems which the current legislative system has were deducted through an implication of each case by diagnosing using diagraming after classifying lower instance terminated cases, which precedents of the Supreme Court and judgments sent to the Supreme Court were excluded, while excluding cases settled in the civil level and classifying analysis of civil case precedents which did not become a criminal case and completed as a civil case, analysis of criminal case precedents, classification of precedents of loss of the parental rights (regarding child abuse) and precedents of any other special laws. And compensatory tasks for special laws regarding punishment of child abuse were presented while suggesting compensatory tasks for the legislation regarding deducted problems.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.105-138
• /
• 2017

This is case comments of several representative legal cases regarding self- determination right of patient. In a case in which an intoxicated patient attempted suicide refusing treatment, the Supreme Court ruled that the medical team's respect for the patient's decision was an act of malpractice, and that in particular medical situations (medical emergencies) the physician's duty to preserve life supersedes the patient's rights to autonomy. Afterwards, at the request of the patient's family, and considering the patient's condition (irrecoverable death stage, etc.) consistent with a persistent vegetative state, the Supreme Court deduced the patient's intention and decide to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. More recently, regarding patients who refuse blood transfusions or other necessary treatment due to religious beliefs, the Supreme Court established a standard of judgment that can be seen as conferring equal value to the physician's duty to respect patient autonomy and to preserve life. An empirical study of legal precedent with regard to cases in which the physician's duty to preserve life conflicts with the patient's autonomy, grounded in respect for human dignity, can reveal how the Court's perspective has reflected the role of the patient as a decision-making subject and ways of respecting autonomy in Korean society, and how the Court's stance has changed alongside changing societal beliefs. The Court has shifted from judging the right to life as the foremost value and prioritizing this over the patient's autonomy, to beginning to at least consider the patient's formally stated or deducible wishes when withholding or withdrawing treatment, and to considering exercises of self determination right based on religious belief or certain other justifications with informed refusal. This will have a substantial impact on medical community going forward, and provide implicit and explicit guidance for physicians who are practicing medicine within this environment.