• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제68권
• /
• pp.43-63
• /
• 2015

The number of final appeal(the rate of final appeal: 43%) has been on the increase every year over the past ten years in Korea. The number of final appeal cases given to a justice of the Korean Supreme Court amounts to nearly one everyday, which makes it vulnerable to faulty decisions. Reversal rate of final appeal is as low as 10% with most of the cases being dismissed and hence the percentage of people having trust in the judiciary is merely 27%. In this context, the Korean judiciary has announced its plan to set up a final appellate court in the Supreme Court. The establishment of final appellate court, however, is not only against the Constitution but also hardly seen in other nations. It would only overexpand the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the final appellate court would end up deteriorating into the court of fourth instance and impose extra burden on the government as well as on the disputing parties. Therefore, it is necessary to upgrade the quality of the court by increasing the number of judges in the lower court and let them focus on the fact finding process. Facilitating the ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) process such as arbitration would help improve the structure of the judiciary. The incompatibility among the four values of the dispute resolution process(equitability, truth, quickness and efficiency) calls for building comprehensive judicial system in which disputes are settled by choosing either jurisprudence or utility.

• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.173-214
• /
• 2013

Traditionally, the Supreme Court has held that medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance should be distinguished from other medical treatment agreements which are viewed as a consummation of the autonomous free will between doctor and patient. Namely, the Supreme Court views medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance to be bound by the National Health Insurance Law with the intent to promote the applicability and comprehensiveness of the national health insurance scheme. Yet, issues of voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are triggered not only by the mistakes or moral hazard of medical care institutions but also by systemic limitations of national health insurance coverage criteria. Thus, there is a need for legislative measures that allow certain medical treatments to be included or reflected in the national health insurance coverage system so that patients may receive prompt and flexible medical treatments. To reflect such concerns, the Supreme Court made an exception for voluntary non-reimbursable treatments and developed a strict test to be applied in such cases in Supreme Court Judgment 2010 Doo 27639, 27646 (ruled on June 8, 2012 by the Grand Bench). Such judgment, however, is not a fundamental overturn of the Supreme Court's prior rulings that voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are not allowed under the law. It is only a slight revision of its previous stance for cases in which there is a lack of legislative measures to make coverage of a new yet valid medical treatment possible under the current national health insurance coverage system.

• 해양환경안전학회지
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.71-78
• /
• 2002

For the first Maritime Accident Inquiry System in Korea, Central Marine Accidents Inquiry Committee were founded in Seoul and District Marine Accidents Inquiry Committee in Busan city In 1963 to determine the circumstances of the accidents and causes. At the present day, it was settled as Maritime Safety Tribunal tough several revision of the Law and regulations regarding the Maritime Accident Inquiry System. In Korea, there occurred about m cases of marine accident, and as a result, about 200 people were lost human lives in average per year. In accordance with the change of circumstances such as traffic increasing and being bigger in size, being faster in speed, etc., the causes of the marine accidents become complicated year by year. Accordingly, in this moment, it is meaningful that the introduction of the Research Official who assists the Judges probing the cases fair and square. In this Paper, with the consideration of the several kinds of Research Official System, such as the Research Official of the Korean Supreme Court, the Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office and the Constitutional Court, Japanese Supreme Court, Law Clerk in USA, etc., the selection, numbers, duty of the Research Official were studied. The results of the study are as follows; 1. The Research Official to be appointed among the person having long enough career as a Judge, Investigator engaged in the Maritime Safety Tribunal due to he sho띨d have capability to confirm perfectly logical judgement and to collect enough material for the conclusion of the causes of the case. The one who understands the foreign language is preferred for the study of the foreign cases; 2. It will be logical to post 3 joint Research Officials in Korea Maritime Safety Tribunal in Seoul after due consideration the cases treated a year; 3. It will be logical for the Research Official to perform the collection of material and inspection of the scene for the trial and inquiry of the cases, to attend the cases filed suit to the Supreme Court, to make commentarial papers regarding the judged cases, to collect statistics of marine accidents and to devise a reform measure through in-depth analysis of the accidents frequently occurred, to study for the improvement of the Maritime Accident Inquiry System;

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.11-74
• /
• 2010

This article analyzes legal meaning and definition of medical practice examining Korean Supreme Court cases. Until now, there is no right answer about the meaning of medical practice and it is also hard to define of it. Moreover, not only Acts and regulations containing medical practice but also many cases ruling a person who practice medicine, the concept of medical practice involves various meanings. So, it has caused confusion. In order to solve this problem, this article divides the medical practice's meaning into range and nature within prohibition article of the Medical Act about unlicensed personnel who practice medicine. After providing a explanation of the meaning of medical practice according to amendment of the Act, this article disputes the meanings of the several cases following the amendment. And then analyzing non-medical person's unlicensed medical practice and medical person's unlicensed medical practice. In order to provide more accurate legal concept of medical practice when Korean government amends the Medical Act or making policies in this field, this classifying analysis approach should be needed. Looking at the result, in general, Korean Supreme Court has interpreted unlicensed prohibition clause of the Medical Act widely; not only non-medical person's unlicensed medical practice but also medical person's unlicensed medical practice. Therefore, this article suggests that the prohibition clause needs to be careful applying to non-medical practice. Because, in fact, even though there are some necessity of non-medical practice, there are no qualificatory or license system of non-medical practitioner in the Medical Acts or regulations forbidding whole non-medical practices. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has decided medical person's unlicensed medical practice too narrowly, thus it does not keep up with rapid change of medical development and people's demands these days. Regarding this subject, in order to take advantage of medical practitioners effectively and cope with increasing people's medical demands, this article proposes that medical person's unlicensed medical practice only to be prohibited in case of endangering our public health.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.165-196
• /
• 2008

Recently the Supreme Court held that "in cases in which a patient suffering from a mental disorder attempts to commit suicide, fails, and then succeeds in a subsequent attempt, the following circumstances must be present in order to acknowledge reasonable causation between the negligence of the hospital with regards to taking care of the patient and the death of the patient; there must have existed negligence on the part of the hospital with regards to their failure to stop the 1stsuicide attempt, injurious aftereffects must have been caused to the patient by the1stsuicide attempt, and said aftereffects must have been the main cause for the 2nd successful suicide attemtp." This, in effect, lessens the requirements of past holdings of the Supreme Court which held that "to acknowledge reasonable causation between the negligence of the hospital and the patient that commits suicide, the patient must have experienced such severe physical and mental suffering from the previous attempt so that they could not help but choose to commit suicide". The fact that the Supreme Court did not clearly state such changes in their view on this matter should be corrected. Also, the fact that the court only held the hospital liable for damages of less than 50 million won, only calculating damages up to the point when the deceased passed, is inadequate compared to other cases and should be corrected.

• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제47권5호
• /
• pp.129-145
• /
• 2022

Recently, Korean customs authorities have attempted to impose customs duties on the warranty charges paid by Korean subsidiaries ("the taxpayers") of multinational corporations to their overseas headquarters, or their affiliates, as indirect payment of the price actually paid or payable for imported goods and services, and the taxpayers' complaints have been steadily increasing. The key issue of Korean Supreme Court decision, 2018Du56619, revolves around opposing interpretations of the Korea Customs Act and the WTO's Customs Valuation Agreement in determining who is responsible for paying duties levied on warranty charges. The Supreme Court's ruling was consistent with its previous interpretations of the WTO agreement on customs valuations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, a Korean subsidiary, stating that the overseas corporate headquarters' payments of warranty charges to Korean dealers are made on behalf of the Korean subsidiary, which is ultimately responsible for covering warranty charges. Thus, the Korean subsidiary's settlement of the warranty charges to their Korean dealers through the overseas headquarters is effectively the same as a direct payment to the dealers. Therefore, the Korean subsidiary performed warranty services on its liability and account. As such, the court ruled that warranty charges should not include tariffs on the indirect payment for warranty services in such cases. This paper presents the comparative legal implications for the warranty charge clauses in the WTO agreement and the Korean Customs Act and analyzes the Supreme Court's decisions.

• 한국언론정보학보
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.5-32
• /
• 2011

한국의 헌법재판소와 미국의 연방대법원 모두 불명확한 법률로 인한 표현의 자유가 위축되는 것을 방지하기 위해 명확성 원칙을 위헌심사 기준으로 채택했다. 위헌심사 기준으로서 요구되는 명확성의 정도가 최고수준의 명확성이 아닌 "최소한의 명확성"이라는 점과 그러한 판단을 법관의 "제한적 해석"에 맡긴다는 점도 공통점이다. 헌법재판소는 법관의 보충적 해석을 통해 보다 명확하게 불법과 합법의 경계를 구분하게 했고, 미국 연방대법원도 법원이 한정해석(narrow construction)의 방법으로 법률적 의미와 범위를 명확하게 함으로써 위헌의 소지를 줄일 수 있다고 판결했다. 그런데 판례 비교 결과, 연방대법원은 표현의 자유를 침해하는 법적 규제에 대해서는 보다 높은 수준의 명확성을 요구한 반면, 헌법재판소는 오히려 명확성 판단기준을 완화하는 경우가 발견되었다. 연방대법원은 수정헌법1조를 침해할 여지가 있는 법조항은 "세밀하게 설정된, 합리적이고, 명확한 기준(narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards)"이 제시되어야 한다고 거듭 강조한 데 비해, 헌법재판소는 불명확한 법률조항으로 인해 표현의 자유 침해여지가 있다는 점을 인정하면서도, 그러한 규제를 통해 얻는 국가 사회적 이익이 더 크다는 이유로, 혹은 "부단히 변화하는 다양한 생활관계를 제대로 규율할" 필요가 있다는 이유로 명확성 원칙을 희석시키는 경향을 보이기도 했다.