• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2020

Under the Korean case law, physicians are obliged to disclose or inform the risk associated with a specific treatment to their patients before they perform the treatment. If they fail to do this, they are liable to compensate pain and sufferings. If the patient can establish that he or she would not have consented at all to the treatment had he or she been informed, the physicians are liable to compensate all the loss incurred by the treatment. In this article, the author examines the legitimacy of this case law from the perspective of legal doctrine as well as its practical affect on the medical practice and the furtherance of self-determination of the patient. The fundamental findings are as follows: The case law that has physicians who failed to inform treatment risk compensate pain and sufferings for the infringement of the right of self-determination seems to be a disguised and reduced compensation of all the loss based on the possible malpractice, which cannot be justified in view of the general principles of tort liability. It is necessary to adhere to the requirements of causation and imputation between the failure to inform treatment risk and the specific patient's consent to the treatment. If this causation and imputation is established, all the loss should be compensated. Otherwise, there shall be no liability. The so-called hypothetical consent defence shall be regarded as a part of causation between the failure to inform and the consent. The suggested approach can preserve the essence of physician-patient relationship and fit for the very logic of informed consent better.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The aircraft crew operating on international routes performs almost identical tasks as police officials in terms of dealing with the unlawful interference in the aircraft. This means that the liability question which is related to the law enforcement by the police officer may arise regarding the crew's performance of his or her duties. With regard to the carrier's liability due to the crew's unlawful action, there are distinctive characteristics from the liability due to police officers' unlawful action. In case of the claim for damages by the crew's unlawful action, the first question should be whether such action complies with the requirements under the Tokyo Convention 1963. If such action does not conform with the Tokyo Convention 1963, we should examine that claim under the State Compensation Act, the Montreal Convention 1999, and the Civil Act of Korea. The examination under the Tokyo Convention 1963 is not so different from the Korean Court's precedents. However, the court should consider the characteristics of the environment surrounding the crew. The action which is not indemnified under the Tokyo Convention 1963 should be examined under the tort laws. Because the aircraft crew is private persons entrusted with public duties under Korean Law, the State Compensation Act may apply. However, further studies regarding the harmonious interpretation with the Montreal Convention 1999 is needed. With regard to the carrier's liability, the Montreal Convention of 1999 should be applied to the crew's unlawful actions onboard. This is because the Montreal Convention of 1999 preempts the national law for the events that occurred during transportation, and there is no provision which excludes such unlawful actions from the scope of its application. On the other hand, the national law, such as the Civil Act of Korea, applies to unlawful actions taken after transportation. This is because the interpretation that infinitely expands the scope of the Montreal Convention 1999 should not be allowed. Given the foregoing, the standard of the claim for damages due to the crew's unlawful action varies depending on the place where the specific action was taken. As a result, the type of damage recoverable and the burden of proof also varies accordingly. Carriers and crew members must perform their duties with this in mind, but in particular, they should observe the proportionality, and when interpreting the law, it is necessary for the court or lawyer to consider the special characteristics of the work environment.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.229-262
• /
• 2015

Toxic tort cases have increased dramatically since the 1970s, as large technological systems, such as nuclear power plants and chemical factories, or mass-produced, high-tech products, had exposed citizens and consumers to dangerous substances. It was, however, difficult to establish causal connection between exposure and the alleged harms in many of the environmental, pollution, and product liability cases under the framework of tort law conception of causation and responsibility. Science and law was called upon to resolve such 'late modern' legal cases where true causes are hard to find, where no single explanatory factor is sufficient for explaining diseases like cancer. This article examines how plaintiffs in the Korean tobacco litigation mobilized such late modern tools in science and law, such as epidemiology and the allocation of the burden of proof, in the context of the global circulation of science and law. It further shows how a set of the scientific theories and legal arguments developed in order to cope with late modern risk played a central role in establishing a causation between smoking and cancer in 2011. This article suggests that STS scholars can fruitfully examine the interaction between science and law as a way to understand and engage with social and legal issues engendered by late modern risk.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.119-145
• /
• 2023

The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act stipulates medication counseling as an obligatory requirement in the case of preparation of medicine. In fact, there are many cases where pharmacists only tell patients the dose and time and do not properly guide them on taking medications. However, in light of the current situation where non-face-to-face treatment is being attempted, there is a high possibility of drug-taking accidents due to insufficient medication guidance. In addition, as an aging society progresses, the need for explanations on pharmaceuticals is increasing. If a pharmacist causes damage to a patient by failing to give appropriate medication guidance, the patient can claim compensation for damages. In addition, if a drug accident occurs due to a conflict between the pharmacist's duty to guide medication and the doctor's duty to explain, a joint tort is established between the pharmacist and the doctor. Nevertheless, there are cases in which only doctors are judged to bear the tort liability. However, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act includes providing information for the selection of over-the-counter drugs in the medication guidance as part of the medication guidance obligation. Therefore, in order to reconsider the importance of the medication-taking guidance duty, it is necessary to define the medicationaking information provision method and the medication-taking guidance duty as separate concepts. In addition, it is necessary to amend related regulations centered on patients so that medication guidance, such as side effects of medicines and interactions with concomitant medications, can be made in detail.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.199-247
• /
• 2012

According to the review and analysis of medical cases that are assigned to the Supreme Court and all local High Court in 2011 and that are presented in the media, it was found that the following categories were taken seriously, medical and pharmaceutical product liability, the third principle of trust between medical institutions, negligence and causation estimation, responsibility limit, the meaning of medical records and related judgment of disturbed substantiation, Oriental doctors' duties to explain the procedures, IMS events, whether one can claim for each medical care operated by non-physician health care institutions to the nonmedical domain in the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the basis of norms for each claim. In the cases related to medical pharmaceutical product liability, Supreme Court alleviated burden of proof for accidents with medical and pharmaceutical products prior to the practice of Product Liability Law and onset the point of negative prescription as the time of damage strikes to condition feasibility of the specific situation. In the cases related to the 3rd principle of trust between medical institutions, the Supreme Court refused to sentence the doctor who has trusted the judgment of the same third-party doctors the violations of the care duty. With respect to proof of a causal relationship and damages in a medical negligence case, the Supreme Court decided that it is unjust to deny negligence by the materials of causal relationship rejecting the original verdict and clarified that the causal relationship shall not deny the reasons to limit doctors' responsibilities. In order not put burden on patients with disadvantages in which medical records and the description of the practice or the most fundamental and important evidence to prove negligence and causation are being neglected, the Supreme Court admitted in the hospital's responsibility for the case of the neonate death of suffocation without properly listed fetal heart rate and uterine contraction monitor. On the other hand, the Seoul Western District Court has admitted alimony for altering and forging medical records. With respect to doctors' obligations to description, the Supreme Court decided that it is necessary to explain the foreseen risks by the combination of oriental and western medicines emphasizing the right of patient's self-determination. However, questions have arisen whether it is realistically feasible or not. In a case of an unlicensed doctor performing intramuscular stimulation treatment (IMS), the Supreme Court put off its decision if it was an unlicensed medical practice as to put limitation of eastern and western medical practices, but it declared that IMS practice was an acupuncture treatment therefore the plaintiff's conduct being an illegal act. In the future, clear judgment on this matter should be made. With respect to the claim of bills from non-physical health care institutions, the Supreme Court decided to void it for the implementation of the arrangement is contrary to the commitments made in the medical law and therefore, it is invalid to claim. In addition, contrast to the private healthcare professionals, who are subject to redemption according to the National Healthcare Insurance Law, the Seoul High Court explicitly confirmed that the non-professionals who receive the tort operating profit must return the unjust enrichment and have the liability for damages. As mentioned above, a relatively wide range of topics were discussed in medical field of 2011. In Korea's health care environment undergoing complex changes day by day, it is expected to see more diverse and in-depth discussions striding out to the development in the field of health care.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.9-56
• /
• 2008

The medical practice does not always get a satisfatory result since the disease progress of patients are depended on patients' physical constitution and the doctors cannot control the outcomes about patients' physiological and biological reaction after the treatment. Moreover, the medical practice may bring wrong result fatalistically because of the unpredictablility of life. To demand for compensation of the damage to the doctors about these wrong result, the patient side holds the burden of proof that is between medical practice and demage, and there is damage from doctor's malpractice according to the accepted theory about the fundamental principle of distribution of the burden of proof. This falls not only under the liability of Tort Law, but also liability of Contract Law. However, the patient may be in difficult situation to prove the malpractice of doctors since he or she cannot recognize the facts because he or she was in unconscious while the medical practice was conducted, or they cannot judge precisely even though they recognize the facts. Nevertheless, the lawsuits against medical malpractice are the field that never achieves the equality of arms since the most of the evidence belong to the doctor's side. Hence, to maintain the principle of the equality of arms under the constitution, the theory leads to alleviate the burden of proof that patients hold. However, the doctors cannot be asked for the burden of proof that they conduct medical practice without errors. Because the doctors may experience difficulty to prove their innocence as the patients because of the unique characteristic that medical practices have. Therefore, the methods of the alleviation of the patient's burden of proof should have the equality of arms and the equal opportunity between the patients and the doctors with the evaluation of the justifiable interest from both the patients and the doctors. As the methods of the alleviation of the burden of proof, the alleviation of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof or resolutely the conversion of the burden may be considered. However, Recognizing the exception from general principle with converting the burden of proof is not proper in principle because the doctors may experience difficulty of the proof as the patients may have. If the difficulty of proof can be resolved by alleviating of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof, it is more desirable resolution rather than converting the burden of proof.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.94-106
• /
• 2009

오늘날 항공기사고는 우리나라뿐만 아니라 세계도처에서 때때로 발생되고 있다. 특히 항공기에 대한 갑작스러운 테로 공격 또는 일반 항공사고에 기인된 항공기의 추락 및 물건의 낙하로 인하여 지상에 있는 제3자에게 손해를 입히는 경우가 간혹 발생되고 있다. 이와 같은 항공사건에 있어 가해자(항공기 운항자)는 피해자(지상 제3자 등)에 대하여 불법행위책임을 부담하게 되는데 이러한 사건들을 해결하기 위하여 1952년의 개정로마조약과 1978년의 몬트리올의정서 등이 있음으로 본 논문에서는 이들 조약의 성립경위 및 주요내용과 개정이유 등을 간략하게 설명하였다. 특히 2001년 9월 11일에 뉴욕에서 발생된 이른바 항공기 납치에 의한 동시다발 테러 사건의 피해는 4대의 항공기에 탑승한 승객 및 승무원 266명이 전원 사망하였고 워싱턴에 있는 미국 방성청사에서의 사망 및 실종이 125명, 세계무역센터에서의 사망 및 실종이 약5,000여명에 달하는 막대한 피해가 발생되었다. 9/11참사사건은 지상에 있는 제3자의 인적 및 물적 손해가 거액에 달하였음으로 이에 따라 영국의 로이드보험 등 세계보험업계가 크게 손실을 입게 되어 항공보험을 기피하는 현상이 생겨나 법적인 문제점이 제기되었다. 국제민간항공기구(ICAO)에서는 9/11사태 이후 이와 같은 테로 사건의 법적대응책과 자구책을 마련하기 위하여 약 8년간의 심의 끝에 항공기에 대한 테로 공격(불법방해 행위)과 1952년 개정로마조약의 현대화(일반위험) 등 새로운 2개 조약을 2009년 5월 2일에 성립시켜 공표하였다. 상기 새로운 2개의 조약 중 첫째 조약은 항공기의 불법방해 행위에 기인된 제3자에 대한 손해 배상에 관한 조약(Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft: 일명 불법방해조약이라고 호칭함: Unlawful Interference Convention)이고 둘째 조약은 항공기에 기인된 제3자에 대한 손해배상에 관한조약 (Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties: 일명 일반위험 조약이라고 호칭함: General Risk Convention) 이다. 본 논문에서는 이 새로운 2개 조약에 대한 ICAO가 주관한 성립경위와 주요 내용 및 필자의 논평을 제시하였고 이들 조약에 대하여 한국의 조속한 비준을 촉구하는 바이다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.147-162
• /
• 1989

The current status of the application and interpretation of the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent Protocols in Asian countries is in its fredgling stages compared to the developed countries of Europe and North America, and there is thus little published information about the various Asian governments' treatment and courts' views of the Warsaw System. Due to that limitation, the accent of this paper will be on Korea and Japan. As one will be aware, the so-called 'Warsaw System' is made up of the Warsaw Convention of 1929, the Hague Protocol of 1955, the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 and the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of 1975. Among these instruments, most of the countries in Asia are parties to both the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol. However, the Republic of Korea and Mongolia are parties only to the Hague Protocol, while Burma, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are parties only to the Warsaw Convention. Thailand and Taiwan are not parties only to the convention or protocol. Among Asian states, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Pakistan are also parties to the Guadalajara Convention, but no country in Asia has signed the Guatemala City Protocol of 1971 or the Montreal Additional Protocols, which Protocols have not yet been put into force. The People's Republic of China has declared that the Warsaw Convention shall apply to the entire Chinese territory, including Taiwan. 'The application of the Warsaw Convention to one-way air carriage between a state which is a party only to the Warsaw Convention and a state which is a party only to the Hague Protocol' is of particular importance in Korea as it is a signatory only to the Hague Protocol, but it is involved in a great deal of air transportation to and from the united states, which in turn is a party only to the Warsaw Convention. The opinion of the Supreme Court of Korea appears to be, that parties to the Warsaw Convention were intended to be parties to the Hague Protocol, whether they actually signed it or not. The effect of this decision is that in Korea the United States and Korea will be considered by the courts to be in a treaty relationship, though neither State is a signatory to the same instrument as the other State. The first wrongful death claim in Korea related to international carriage by air under the Convention was made in Hyun-Mo Bang, et al v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. case. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed for damages based upon breach of contract as well as upon tort under the Korean Civil Code. The issue in the case was whether the time limitation provisions of the Convention should be applicable to a claim based in tort as well as to a claim based in contract. The Appellate Court ruled on 29 August 1983 that 'however founded' in Article 24(1) of the Convention should be construed to mean that the Convention should be applicable to the claim regardless of whether the cause of action was based in tort or breach of contract, and that the plaintiffs' rights to damages had therefore extinguished because of the time limitation as set forth in Article 29(1) of the Convention. The difficult and often debated question of what exactly is meant by the words 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' in Article 25(1) of the Warsaw Convention, has also been litigated. The Supreme Court of Japan dealt with this issue in the Suzuki Shinjuten Co. v. Northwest Airlines Inc. case. The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court's ruling, and decided that 'such default equivalent to wilful misconduct' under Article 25(1) of the Convention was within the meaning of 'gross negligence' under the Japanese Commercial Code. The issue of the convention of the 'franc' into national currencies as provided in Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol has been raised in a court case in Korea, which is now before the District Court of Seoul. In this case, the plaintiff argues that the gold franc equivalent must be converted in Korean Won in accordance with the free market price of gold in Korea, as Korea has not enacted any law, order or regulation prescribing the proper method of calculating the equivalent in its national currency. while it is unclear if the court will accept this position, the last official price of gold of the United States as in the famous Franklin Mint case, Special Drawing Right(SDR) or the current French franc, Korean Air Lines has argued in favor of the last official price of gold of the United States by which the air lines converted such francs into us Dollars in their General Conditions of Carriage. It is my understanding that in India, an appellate court adopted the free market price valuation. There is a report as well saying that if a lawsuit concerning this issue were brought in Pakistan, the free market cost of gold would be applied there too. Speaking specifically about the future of the Warsaw System in Asia though I have been informed that Thailand is actively considering acceding to the Warsaw Convention, the attitudes of most Asian countries' governments towards the Warsaw System are still wnot ell known. There is little evidence that Asian countries are moving to deal concretely with the conversion of the franc into their own local currencies. So too it cannot be said that they are on the move to adhere to the Montreal Additional Protocols Nos. 3 & 4 which attempt to basically solve many of the current problems with the Warsaw System, by adopting the SDR as the unit of currency, by establishing the carrier's absolute liability and an unbreakable limit and by increasing the carrier's passenger limit of liability to SDR 100,000, as well as permiting the domestic introduction of supplemental compensation. To summarize my own sentiments regarding the future, I would say that given the fact that Asian air lines are now world leaders both in overall size and rate of growth, and the fact that both Asian individuals and governments are becoming more and more reliant on the global civil aviation networks as their economies become ever stronger, I am hopeful that Asian nations will henceforth play a bigger role in ensuring the orderly and hasty development of a workable unified system of rules governing international commercial air carriage.

• Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
• /
• v.49 no.2
• /
• pp.80-96
• /
• 2016

Recently, a series of lawsuits were filed in Korea claiming tort liability against tobacco companies. The Supreme Court has already issued decisions in some cases, while others are still pending. The primary issue in these cases is whether the epidemiological evidence submitted by the plaintiffs clearly proves the causal relationship between smoking and disease as required by civil law. Proving causation is difficult in tobacco lawsuits because factors other than smoking are involved in the development of a disease, and also because of the lapse of time between smoking and the manifestation of the disease. The Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision, 2011Da22092, April 10, 2014) has imposed some limitations on using epidemiological evidence to prove causation in tobacco lawsuits filed by smokers and their family members, but these limitations should be reconsidered. First, the Court stated that a disease can be categorized as specific or non-specific, and for each disease type, causation can be proven by different types of evidence. However, the concept of specific diseases is not compatible with multifactor theory, which is generally accepted in the field of public health. Second, when the epidemiological association between the disease and the risk factor is proven to be significant, imposing additional burdens of proof on the plaintiff may considerably limit the plaintiff's right to recovery, but the Court required the plaintiffs to provide additional information such as health condition and lifestyle. Third, the Supreme Court is not giving greater weight to the evidential value of epidemiological study results because the Court focuses on the fact that these studies were group-level, not individual-level. However, group-level studies could still offer valuable information about individual members of the group, e.g., probability of causation.