• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.89-115
• /
• 2021

Korea's health care delivery system is based on the Medical law and the National Health Insurance Act. In order to efficiently operate limited medical resources, it is classified to use medical institutions according to the severity of the disease. The question is whether a tertiary care hospital can terminate a medical contract for a patient, if treatment for severe diseases has already been performed at a tertiary care hospital. In the case of termination of treatment, the Korean court has both a judgment that recognizes the right to terminate and a judgment that denies the termination. Among the U.S. rulings, there are rulings that order transfer to a skilled nursing facility or nursing home or home if acute treatment is no longer needed. Considering that medical resources are limited, it is necessary to acknowledge the right to terminate the contract of the medical institution when treatment by a medical institution is completed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.95-118
• /
• 2015

This study examines the Buyer's Remedies in respect of Defects in Title under SGA. As SGA divides contractual terms into a condition and a warranty, its effects regarding a breach of a condition or a warranty are different. Where a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, its breach may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated and to claim damages. Where there is a breach of a warranty in a contract of sale, the aggrieved party may have a right to claim damages. Regarding a breach of a condition under SGA s 12(1), although the buyer may have his right to terminate the contract, he may lose that right when he accept or is deemed to have accept the goods by intimating his acceptance to the seller, acting inconsistently with the ownership of the seller, or retaining the goods beyond a reasonable time without rejecting them. Furthermore, the buyer may claim the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting from seller's breach. SGA contains the principle of full compensation and so the suffered loss and the loss of profit are compensable. As to specific performance under SGA, the court has been empowered to make an order of specific performance to deliver the goods in conformity with the terms of the contract and so it is not a buyer's right. This order should be made only where the goods to be delivered are specific or ascertained goods and the court must think fit to grant the order. However, among these remedies, the buyer cannot have the right to terminate the contract where there is a breach of warranty by the seller under SGA s 12(2).

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.81-109
• /
• 2021

This paper review about the relationship between the prohibition against medical refusal and the principle of private autonomy in medical contracts. The obligation to this Prohibition in Medical Law does not restrict the liberty of contracting a medical contract. On the other hand, the prohibition limits the freedom to terminate medical contracts. Medical contracts can be terminated if the trust between doctors and patients is vanished. However certain restrictions should be placed on termination of the medical contract, because termination of the contract should not be detrimental to patients' health. According to the current medical law the medical contract is to be enforced in principle and can be revoked only with justifiable reason. At the Civil Code on Medical Contracts the freedom to terminate the medical contract is permitted, but this paper suggests the restrictions of the revocation under certain conditions. The Criminal Punishment Regulations against medical refusal should be removed. Refusal the provide medical service should be regulated by administrative sanctions under the National Health Insurance Act's obligation.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.273-290
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the buyer's right to avoid the contract under SGA and CISG. Design/methodology/approach - This paper has conducted literature reviews to analyze the right to avoid the contract of the buyer based on the comparative study. Findings - Under s. 11(3) of SGA, the breach of a condition and an intermediate which deprives the buyer substantially of the whole benefit of the contract may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. But under Art. 49 of CISG, the buyer has the right to terminate the contract where the seller's failure to performance amounts to a fundamental breach of contract. Regarding the breach of an intermediate and the breach under CISG, the buyer should take into account where the seller's breach is fundamental or not. Moreover, an anticipatory breach can give rise to a right to avoid the contract. The anticipatory breach of a condition justifies termination. The breach of an intermediate and the breach under CISG require an anticipatory fundamental breach of the contract. Under SGA, the buyer has to prove an anticipatory breach in fact but CISG does not require virtual certainty, which SGA has stricter criteria to assess an anticipatory breach. Research implications or Originality - Comparative study helps to understand the nature of provisions under SGA and CISG and suggests practical advice to choose applicable laws. SGA gives more certainty to classify a contractual term. In case of the breach of a condition including the anticipatory breach under SGA, the buyer does not have to ask how much serious the breach is. But CISG requires the fundamental breach of the contract, which means that the buyer has the more burden of proof compared with SGA.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2009

The PECL have been drawn up by an independent body of experts from each member state of the european union under a project supported by the european commission and many other organizations. Salient features of the general provisions of the PECL, freedom of contract and pecta sunk servanda, good faith and fair dealing, most of the PECL are non-mandatory. The CISG uses the term fundamental breach in various setting. The concept of fundamental breach is a milestone in its remedial provisions. Its most important role is that it constitutes the usual precondition for the contract to be avoided(Art. 49., Art. 51., Art. 64., Art. 72., Art. 73). In addition, where the goods do not conform with the contract, a fundamental breach can give rise to a requirement to deliver substitute goods. Furthermore, a fundamental breach of contract by the seller leaves the buyer with all of his remedies intact, despite the risk having passed to him(Art. 70). Basically, PECL, PICC generally follows CISG, it was similar to all the regulation's platform though the terms and content sometimes differ. For example regarding to the non-performance and remedies, in the case of non-performance, that is the PECL/PICC term analogous to breach of contract as used in the CISG. Furthermore the PECL/PICC used fundamental non-performance refered to in PECL Art. 8:103 ; PICC Art. 7.1.1. correspond generally to the concept of fundamental breach referred to in CISG Art. 25. The main significance of the fundamental non-performance, in any systems, is to empower the aggrieved party to terminate the contract. The need for uniformity and harmony in international commercial contracts can be expected to lead to growth of international commerce subject to the CISG, PICC, and PECL. It is hoped that the present editorial remarks will provide guidance to improve understanding between the contractual party of different countries in this respect and following key-words.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.209-240
• /
• 2012

Since the age of Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundation of the modern English insurance contract law in the second part of the 18th century, English insurance law has developed a unique rule of warranty. Lord Mansfield adopted very different approach and afforded such a strict legal character to insurance warranty, because the promise, given by the insured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk insured at that time. It is still important that the insured keep his promises strictly to the insurer under the insurance contract, but legal environments have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. English Law Commission proposed some proposals for reforming the warranty regime to reflect the changes of legal environment in CP 2007. This article is, therefore, designed to examine the proposals and consider their legal and practical implications. The proposals of Law Commission is summarized as following. First, in CP 2007, Law Commission made two principal proposals for reform of the law on warranty. The first is that the insurer should not be entitled to rely on a breach of warranty unless the insured has been provided with a witten statement of what they have undertaken under warranty. The second is that the insurer should not be entitled to reject a claim on the ground that the insured has breached a warranty unless there was a causal connection between the breach and the loss. Secondly, for consumer insurance, the rule requiring a causal connection would be mandatory, whereas for business insurance, it would be possible for the parties to agree on the effect a breach of warranty should have, provided they use clear language to express their intentions. Thirdly, where the insured contracted on the insurer's written standard terms of business, some statutory controls would be afforded to the contract to ensure that the cover was not substantially different from what the insured reasonably expected. Finally, Law Commission propose that a breach of warranty give the insurer the right to terminate the contract, rather than automatically discharging it from liability, but (unless otherwise agreed) only if the breach has sufficiently serious consequences to justify termination under the general law of contract. Having evaluated the proposals of the Law Commission and considered their legal and practical implications, it is quite clear that the proposed rule interfere with freedom of contract and create legal uncertainty. But change can not made without any victims, so Law Commission's attempt to change severe and injust aspects of the warranty regime would be very welcomed and respected.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2020

This study analyzes the buyer's remedies for defects in title under DCFR, and it is compared with those of CISG. DCFR adopts a unitary concept of 'non-performance' which is any failure and includes delayed performance and any other performance which is not conformed with the contract. In terms of defects in title, any remedies for non-performance are available under DCFR. Thus. under DCFR, the buyer is entitled to enforce specific performance of obligations, to withhold performance, to terminate for fundamental non-performance, to reduce price, to damage for loss, to require repair, or to deliver a replacement. But under CISG, whether or not defects in title constitute 'non-conformity' is not clear and the majority understands 'non-conformity' does not include title defects. Therefore, the buyer may not has rights to require repair and delivery of replacement unlike DCFR.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.139-161
• /
• 2017

In this paper, The Supreme Court of Korea 2016. 1. 28. 2015Da9769 was reviewed. In the previous case, Korean Supreme Court 2009Da17417 for the element to requirement for permission of the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, the patient's consent for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments was assumed a declaration of intention to terminate the contract. But the consent for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments corresponds not to those. The consent for medical treatments is not the juristic acts but the real acts. If the presumptive intention about these withdrawal regards as the termination of medical contract, the contract must be up to the starting the civil proceedings. According to this case, although the partial cancellation of medical contract is admitted, on the other hand medical expenses obligation ist exempted only after the final decision. At the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments the medical obligation ist exempted because of the inability to providing the medical payment, which confirmed by the final decision about the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments. Therefore the judgement of this case ist appropriate in that sense, the medical obligation ist waived only after the final decision. However that legal basis lies not at the partial cancel but at the partial inability.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.207-215
• /
• 2019

The insurance system is indispensable to our society. However in recent years, there have been a lot of insurance fraud crimes, such as the abuse of these valuable insurance system and the cheating the insurance proceeds. These insurance frauds make the insurance companies harder to manage, and as a result, the insurance premiums have risen, which has caused a lot of damaging good policyholders. However, the damage caused by insurance fraud has been continuously increasing due to the punishment of cotton stick. Therefore, after the long discussion, the 'The Act for Prevention of Insurance Fraud', which is a special law recently has been enacted. However, within two years of the enactment of this law, which was enacted after much anticipation and long waiting, there is already debate about its effectiveness. The reason for this is that even though the law was enacted and enforced, insurance fraud continues to increase and even punishment for these crimes is not strengthened, and now it is time to look for specific problems and resolutions for these crimes see. So in this paper the author dealt with the problems of the law, first, related regulation of insurance payment, second, right to terminate insurance contract and return of insurance proceeds, third, regulation on notification of investigations, fourth, regulations on the adequacy of hospitalization. Of course, since this law has just been enacted, there are many other problems besides these problems, but I tried to present a fresh resolution based on the problems that have been mainly discussed since the legislative period.