• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.79-117
• /
• 2023

Among the healthcare-related judgments handed down in 2002, there was a significant ruling on the timing of the duty of explanation, stating that, in order to ensure the exercise of the patient's right to self-determination, the patient must be given time to consider and decide on the risks and side effects of a medical procedure in specific circumstances. In addition, in a case where an insurance company claimed unjust enrichment against a medical institution on behalf of its insureds, the court provided a clear standard by distinguishing between active and passive requirements regarding the need to preserve the right of subrogation of creditors. In the area of medical administration, there was a ruling that clarified that a medical institution's business suspension under the National Health Insurance Act is directed against the medical institution, a ruling that broadly recognized causation in a case of compensation for side effects of corona vaccination, and a ruling on the scope of a medical practitioner's license, such as the use of ultrasound devices by an oriental medicine practitioner. In a case involving a patient's claim for eviction from a medical institution, the court reviewed a ruling on just cause for termination of a hospitalization contract in relation to Article 15(1) of the Medical law.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.278-283
• /
• 2016

Background Disputes regarding medical malpractice occur between practitioners and patients. As patients have become increasingly aware regarding medical care, an increase in the unexpected side effects of procedures has been observed, thereby leading to an increase in disputes regarding medical malpractice. In this study, we reviewed trends in precedents involving cosmetic surgery-related medical disputes, with the goal of helping to prevent unnecessary disputes in the future. Methods We conducted a search of the judgments made in South Korean courts between 2000 and 2013 that were related to the field of plastic surgery. A total of 54 judgments were analyzed, and the selected precedents were reviewed and classified according to the kind of negligence involved. Results The claim amounts ranged from under 8 million KRW (6,991 USD) to 750 million KRW (629,995 USD). The most common ratio of the judgment amount to the claim amount was 20%-30%. The judgments were classified according to the following categories: violation of the duty of explanation in 17 cases (29%), violation of the duty of care in 10 cases (17%), violation of both duties in 20 cases (35%), and no violation of duty in six cases (10%). Conclusions Cosmetic surgery-related suits require different approaches than general malpractice suits. The Supreme Court requires plastic surgeons to determine the type, timing, methods, and scope of their treatments when considering possible results. Therefore, practitioners should be educated on their rights and responsibilities to enable them to cope with any possible medical dispute that may arise.