• 의료법학
• /
• 제22권4호
• /
• pp.89-115
• /
• 2021

우리나라의 의료전달체계는 의료법과 국민건강보험법에 근거하고 있으며, 한정된 의료자원을 효율적으로 운영하기 위하여 질환의 중증도에 따라 의료기관을 이용하도록 구분되어 있다. 상급종합병원에서 이미 중증 질환에 대한 치료가 이루어져 병원급 의료기관으로 전원 또는 자택으로 퇴원이 가능한 경우 의료기관에서 환자에 대하여 의료계약을 해지할 수 있는지가 문제된다. 우리나라 법원의 입장으로는 해당 의료기관에서 더 이상의 입원치료가 불필요한 경우 의료기관의 의료계약 해지권을 인정하는 판결과 그러한 경우에도 의료기관의 의료계약 해지권을 부정하는 판결이 병존하고 있다. 한편 미국 판결 중에는 급성 치료를 담당하는 의료기관에서 입원 중인 환자에게 더 이상 급성 치료가 필요하지 않는 경우에 전문간호시설 등으로 전원을 인정하는 판결들이 있다. 의료자원이 한정되어 있고 의료기관의 계약 해지권이 제한된 취지가 국민의 생명권, 건강권에 대한 위험을 방지하기 위한 목적임을 고려할 때 해당 의료기관에서 치료가 종결되어 환자에게 더 이상 신체적 위해가 없음이 확인된 경우에는 다시 원칙으로 돌아가 의료기관의 계약 해지권을 인정할 필요가 있다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제66권
• /
• 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).

• 의료법학
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.81-109
• /
• 2021

본 논문에서는 민법전에 의료계약에 관한 규정을 신설하기 위한 논의의 과정에서 의료관련 법률의 진료거부금지 규정과 의료계약에서 계약자유의 원칙의 관계를 검토하였다. 그 내용은 다음과 같다. 의료법의 진료거부금지 규정이 의료계약 체약의 자유를 제한하는 것은 아니다. 환자의 요청에 따른 진료개시와 진료개시 후 의학적 판단에 기초한 의료내용의 결정과 진료비에 대한 협의 하에 체결되는 의료계약의 성립은 구별된다. 반면 진료거부금지 규정으로 의료계약 해지의 자유는 제한된다. 의료계약은 전문가인 의료인과 자신의 생명·신체에 대한 처분을 전문가에게 맡긴 환자의 신뢰에 기초한 것이기 때문에 신뢰가 깨지면 계약을 해지할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 계약의 해지로 환자의 생명·신체에 불이익을 주어서는 안 되기 때문에, 의료계약의 해지에는 일정한 제한을 두어야 할 것이다. 의료계약의 체약을 강제하고 정당한 사유가 있는 때에만 계약을 해지할 수 있도록 하는 것이 현재 의료법의 태도이다. 민법전의 의료계약에 관한 규정에서는 의료계약 해지의 자유를 인정하되, 일정한 경우에 계약의 해지를 제한하는 방향을 제시하였다. 계약의 해지를 위한 정당한 사유가 인정되고, 환자가 다른 의료인으로부터 진료를 받을 수 없는 등 불리한 시기가 아닌 경우에 계약의 해지를 인정한다. 의료법의 진료거부금지의무 위반에 대한 처벌규정을 삭제하고, 계약법의 문제로 옮겨와야 할 것이다. 진료를 거부한 행위 자체에 대해서는 국민건강보험법의 요양급여거절의무에 따른 행정제재로 규율하여야 할 것이다.

• 아태비즈니스연구
• /
• 제11권3호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제44권
• /
• 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
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권2호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.139-161
• /
• 2017

이 글은 대법원 2016.1.28. 선고 2015다9769 판결의 검토를 목적으로 한다. 이 사건 연명의료 중단에 관한 이전의 판례에서 대법원은 객관적 요건으로 회생불가능한 사망의 단계와 주관적 요건으로 환자의 동의가 충족되면 의료계약이 해지된다고 보았다. 그러나 환자의 동의는 의료계약 해지에 관한 동의가 아니다. 환자의 의료행위에 대한 동의는 법률행위가 아니다. 그것은 사실행위이다. 만약 연명 의료의 중단에 관한 환자의 추정적 의사가 의료계약의 해지의 의사라면, 의료계약은 연명의료 중단에 관한 소 제기시에 종료하여야 한다. 그런데 대상판결은 의료계약이 일부 해지되었다고 하면서도 진료비채무는 연명의료 허용에 관한 판결이 확정된 때부터 면제된다고 하였다. 이는 논리적으로 맞지 않다. 연명의료의 중단이 허용되면 의료급부 제공이 불가능해지기 때문에 그 부분 진료채무가 면제된다. 급부의 불능은 연명치료 중단에 관한 확정판결이 있는 때에 확정된다. 따라서 연명의료 중단에 관한 확정판결이 있은 때부터 연명의료에 대한 진료비채무가 면제된다고 한 대상판결의 결론은 타당하다. 다만 그 근거는 의료계약의 일부해지가 아니라 일부불능이다.

• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• 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.