• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• 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.

• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• 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
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• 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.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제12권5호
• /
• pp.188-198
• /
• 2012

교회는 법인 아닌 사단으로 인정되는 단체 중의 하나이며, 법인 아닌 사단에 관한 민법의 일반 이론에 따라 교회 실체를 파악하고 교회의 재산귀속에 대해서 판단한다. 법인 아닌 사단의 내부관계는 일차적으로 정관의 적용을 받고 정관의 규정이 없는 경우에는 총회 결의와 민법의 사단법인에 관한 규정을 유추적용하게 된다. 법인 아닌 사단의 채무에 대해서는 사원의 준총유이다(제275조, 제278조). 지난 50여년 동안 대법원 판례는 법인 아닌 사단인 개신교 교회에 대하여서만은 일반적인 법리와는 달리, 교회의 분열을 허용하고 분열시의 재산관계는 분열당시의 교인들의 총유라고 판시했다. 새로운 판례(대법원 2006. 4. 20. 선고 2004다37775 전원합의체판결)는 법인 아닌 사단의 분열은 허용되지 않으므로 비법인 사단의 분쟁해결을 위해 대법원은 종전의 분열인정에서 부인하는 쪽으로 판례를 변경한 것은 분쟁을 해결해야 한다는 당위성이 반영된 것으로 이해된다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국사회복지학
• /
• 제66권2호
• /
• pp.31-49
• /
• 2014

본 연구의 목적은 아동권리보호를 위한 아동학대 관련 판례를 분석하는 것이다. 법에서 '아동학대'라 칭하여 판례가 나오기 위해서는 처벌 근거인 '아동 학대처벌' 관련법이 있어야 하는데, 기본법인 아동복지법에서의 '아동학대'개념만 있어 처벌을 위한 직접적 판시로는 친권상실관련 '아동학대' 판례와 형사범죄, 민사범죄, 특례법 판시만 내려지고 있어 '아동 학대범죄 처벌에 관한 특례법'이 절실하였다(작년 12월 23일 아동학대범죄처벌에 관한 특례법이 국회를 통과하였다). 이에 본 연구를 통해 재판상 아동학대라 판시하지는 않았으나, 아동학대로 볼 수 있는 2000-2013년 판례를 묶어 판례분석을 하였다. 본 연구에서는 각 판례들을 사실관계에 따른 분석, 판시내용에 따른 분석을 함에 대법원판례, 대법원에 올라간 판시를 제외한 하급심종결판례를 구분하면서 민사상 합의된 건은 제외하고 불법행위로 성립, 형사사건화 되지 않고 민사사건으로 종결된 민사상판례분석, 형사상판례분석, 친권상실(아동학대와 관련하여)판례구분, 그 밖의 특례법상의 판례를 구분하여 도식화 진단하여 각 판례의 시사점을 통해 현 법제가 갖고 있는 문제점을 도출하고 그에 대한 입법 상 보완과제를 제시하면서 아동학대범죄 처벌에 관한 특례법상의 보완과제를 제시하였다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.105-138
• /
• 2017

이 글은 환자의 자기결정권에 관한 몇몇 대표적인 판례들을 연혁적으로 검토한 논문이다. 대법원은 과거 음주상태에서 농약을 음독하여 자살을 시도한 환자가 치료를 거부하자 치료를 포기한 의료진에게 특정 의학적 상태(응급상황)에서 의사의 생명보호의무가 환자의 자기결정권 존중보다 우선한다고 판단하여 의료과실을 인정하였다. 이후 대법원은 가족들의 요청에 의해 지속적 식물인간 상태인 환자에게 해당 환자의 의학적 상태(회복불가능한 사망의 단계 등)를 고려하고 환자의 의사를 추정하여 연명의료를 중단하게 하였다. 최근 대법원은 종교적 신념과 관련하여 수혈과 같은 필수적인 치료를 거부한 환자에 대하여 대법원은 환자의 생명 보호에 못지않게 환자의 자기결정권을 존중하여야 할 의무가 대등한 가치를 가지는 것으로 평가할 수 있는 판단 기준을 제시하였다. 인간의 존엄성에 근거한 환자의 자기결정권과 의사의 생명보호의무가 충돌하는 상황에 대하여 연혁적 판례 검토를 통해 법원의 입장이 우리 사회에서 환자의 주체적 역할과 자율성을 존중하는 방향을 반영하여 함께 변화되어 왔음을 확인할 수 있었다. 법원이 생명권이라는 최고의 가치만을 환자의 의사보다 더욱 우선하여 판단해오다가 적어도 명시적인 환자의 의사 또는 그렇지 못할 경우에 추정적 의사까지도 고려한 치료의 유보나 중단에 대하여 고려하기 시작한 것, 종교적 신념에 근거한 자기결정권의 행사로서의 수혈거부와 같은 치료거부에 대하여 충분한 정보에 근거한 치료거부의 몇 가지 적법한 요건들을 인정하기 시작했다는 것은 이후 우리나라 의료 환경에 적잖은 영향을 줄 것이고 의료현장에서 의료행위를 하는 의사들에게도 직 간접적인 지침이 될 것이다.