• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.317-343
• /
• 2014

In order to account for whether a doctor should indemnify damages resulted from violation of duty of care, the fact that a doctor violated duty of care, that damages were incurred, and the link between violation of duty of care and damages incurred, respectively, should be verified. So even though a doctor violated duty of care to patients, he or she will not bear the responsibility to indemnify damages unless it is not verified. If a doctor's negligence in medical practices is assessed that obviously unfaithful medical practice far exceeds the limit of admission of a patient, it will not go against people's general perception of justice or law and order to constitute a medical malpractice itself as an illegal action that will require liabiliy for damage. However, when the limit of admission is set too low, a patient's benefit and expectation of proper medical treatment can be violated. In contrast, if the limit of admission is set high, it can leave too little room for doctors' discretion for treatments due to a bigger risk of indemnification for damages. Thus, a reasonable balance that can satisfy both benefit and expectation of patients and doctors' right to treatment is needed.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.163-207
• /
• 2020

Korea has been positioned as the leading country in the industry of clinical trials as the clinical trail of Korea has developed for the recent 10 years. Clinical trial has plays a significant role in the development of medicine and the increase of curability. However, it has inevitable risk as the purpose of the clinical trial is to prove the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. Therefore, the clinical trial should be controlled properly to protect the health of the subjects of clinical trial and to ensure that they exercise a right of self-determination. In this context, the fiduciary duties of doctors who conduct clinical trials is especially important. The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the relevant regulations define several duties of doctors who conduct clinical trials. In particular, the duty to protection of subjects and the duty to provide information constitute the main fiduciary duties to the subjects. Those are essentially similar to the fiduciary duties of doctors in usual treatment from the perspective of the values promoted by the law and the content of the law. Nonetheless, clinical trials put more emphasis on the duties to provide explanation than in usual treatment. Further research and study are required to establish the concrete standard for the duty of care. However, if the blind pursuit of higher standards for the duty of care or to pass the burden of proof to doctors may result in disrupting the development of clinical trials, limiting the accessibility of patients to new treatment and even violating the principle of sharing damage equally and properly. In addition to these duties, the laws of clinical trials define several duties of doctors. Any decision on whether the violation of the law constitutes the violation of the fiduciary duty and justifies the demand for compensation of damages should be based on whether relevant law aims to protect the safety and benefit of subjects, even if in an incidental way, the degree to which such violation breaches the values promoted by the law and the concrete of violation of benefit of law, the detailed acts of such violation. The legal interests of the subjects can be protected effectively by guaranteeing compliance with those duties and establishing judicial and administrative controls to ensure that the benefit of subjects are protected properly in individual cases.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2015

Recently, Practicing of ghost surgery and duty of informed consent of doctors have become a big issue in the medical dispute and lawsuits. The ground of admitting the informed consent and the agreement(self-determination of patients) can be based on the dignity of man and the right to pursue his happiness guaranteed under Article 10 of the constitution in theory. However there are no explicit legal regulations on the duty of the informed consent and there is no substantive legal enactment on the informed consent, but there is a collision between self-determination of patients and the discretionary power of doctors. If the discretionary power on the duty of the informed consent was extended it may result in the infringement of the right of surgical patients, so called arbitrary medical treatment. Relating to this issue, New Jersey Supreme Court held that a patient has the right to determine not only whether surgery is to be performed on him, but also who shall perform it. Moreover it held that a surgeon who operates without the patient's consent engages in the unauthorized touching of another and, thus, commits a battery'. But there are no ghost surgery cases adopting battery theory in Korea, and professional negligence has been considered rather than the battery, regarding an absence of hostile intent to injure patient. Supreme Court of Korea held that a doctor who operates a medical procedure without the patient's valid prior consent based on wrong diagnosis commits professional negligence resulting in injury, and the patient's invalid consent do not preclude wrongfulness'. However, if a health care provider conducts a completely non-consensual treatment or substitute surgeon without consent, the action should be plead in battery, not negligence, but if a health care provider violate his duty of care in obtaining the consent of the patient by failing to disclosure all relevant information (risks) that a reasonable person would deem significant in making a decision to have the procedure, the action should be plead in negligence, not battery. Therefore, the scope of patients' self-determination can be protected by stating clearly the scope of the duty of the informed consent and the exemption of the informed consent legislatively, it is considered that it is valid to legislate the limitation of the discretionary power.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.133-170
• /
• 2022

Supreme Court 2018Da228486, on July 29, 2021, ruled Article 750 of the Civil Act as the basis for liability for damages due to the violation of the supervisory duty of the responsible mental patient. This judgment recognizes that the legal guardian is liable for tort due to neglect of the responsibility of supervision under Article 750 of the Civil Act because the duty of protection bears the duty of supervision over the mental patient under the law. However, unlike the case of Article 755 Paragraph 1, which explicitly requires a legal obligation to supervise, Article 750 only stipulates general tort liability. Thus, to admit tort liability under Article 750, it is not necessary that the basis of the supervisory duty by the law. In this case, the supervisory duty may also be acknowledged according to customary law or sound reasoning. The duty of supervision of a legal guardian is not a general duty to prevent all consequences of the behavior of a mental patient but a duty within a reasonably limited scope. Therefore, the responsibility of the burden of care should be acknowledged only when the objective circumstances in which it is appropriate to hold the legal guardian for the acts of the mental patient are admitted. Under the Act on the improvement of mental health and the support for welfare services for mental patients, a legal guardian cannot even be granted the supervisory duty to prevent the mental patient from harming others.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.47-85
• /
• 1989

The Fundamental purpose of the Warsaw Convention was to establish uniform rules applicable to international air transportation. The emphasis on the benefits of uniformity was considered important in the beginning and continues to be important to the present. If the desire for uniformity is indeed the mortar which holds the Warsaw system together then it should be possible to agree on a worldwide liability limit. This liability limit would not be so unreasonable, that it would be impossible for nations to adhere to it. It would preclude any national supplemental compensation plan or Montreal Agreement type of requirement in any jurisdiction. The differentiation of liability limits by national requirement seems to be what is occurring. There is a plethora of mandated limits and Montreal Agreement type 'voluntary' limits. It is becoming difficult to find more than a few major States where an unmodified Warsaw Convention or Hague Protocol limitation is still in effect. If this is the real world in the 1980's, then let the treaty so reflect it. Upon reviewing the Warsaw Convention, its history and the several attempts to amend it, strengths become apparent. Hijackings of international flights have given rise to a number of lawsuits by passengers to recover damages for injuries suffered. This comment is concerned with the liability of an airline for injuries to its passengers resulting from aviation terrorism. In addition, analysis is focused on current airline security measures, particularly the pre-boarding screening system, and the duty of air carriers to prevent weapons from penetrating that system. An airline has a duty to exercise a high degree of care to protect its passengers from the threat of aviation terrorism. This duty would seemingly require the airline to exercise a high degree of care to prevent any passenger from smuggling a weapon or explosive device aboard its aircraft. In the case an unarmed hijacker who boards having no instrument in his possession with which to promote the hoax, a plaintiff-passenger would be hard-pressed to show that the airline was negligent in screening the hijacker prior to boarding. In light of the airline's duty to exercise a high degree of care to provide for the safety of all the passengers on board, an acquiescene to a hijacker's demands on the part of the air carrier could constitute a breach of duty only when it is clearly shown that the carrier's employees knew or plainly should have known that the hijacker was unarmed. A finding of willful misconduct on the part of an air carrier, which is a prerequisite to imposing unlimited liability, remains a question to be determined by a jury using the definition or standard of willful misconduct prevailing in the jurisdiction of the forum court. Through the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention, air carrier face the possibility of unlimited liability for failure to implement proper preventive precautions against terrorist. Courts, therefore, should broadly construe the willful misconduct provision of the Warsaw Convention in order to find unlimited liability for passenger injuries whenever air carrier security precautions are lacking. In this way, the courts can help ensure air carrier safety and prevention against terrorist attack. Air carriers, therefore, would have an incentive to increase, impose and maintain security precautions designed to thwart such potential terrorist attacks as in the case of Korean Air Lines Flight No.858 incident having a tremendous impact on the civil aviation community. The crash of a commercial airliner, with the attending tragic loss of life and massive destruction of property, always gives rise to shock and indignation. The general opinion is that the legal system could be sufficient, provided that the political will is there to use and apply it effectively. All agreed that the main responsibility for security has to be borne by the governments. I would like to remind all passengers that every discovery of the human spirit may be used for opposite ends; thus, aircraft can be used for air travel but also as targets of terrorism. A state that supports aviation terrorism is responsible for violation of International Aviation Law. Generally speaking, terrorism is a violation of international law. It violates the soverign rights of the states, and the human rights of the individuals. I think that aviation terrorism as becoming an ever more serious issue, has to be solved by internationally agreed and closely co-ordinated measures. We have to contribute more to the creation of a general consensus amongst all states about the need to combat the threat of aviation terrorism.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.155-190
• /
• 2015

The court sentenced meaningful decisions related to the medical service in 2014. The court assumed the negligence of medical staff in the accident if being broken while using the medical equipment for not an original purpose at the time of surgery and ruled that the compensation for damage can be recognized in recognition of the causal relationship between the explanation duty violation and side effect's happening when unproven surgery on safety is implemented regarding the duty of explanation, that in the case of cosmetic surgery, the subject on the duty of explanation needs to be expanded compared to the general medical practice and that the duty of explanation cannot be accepted for the range that cannot be expectable. Also, the court has provided the requirement and limitation of self-determination exercise in case of the crash between patient's self-determination and doctor's duty of care and has ruled that as automobile insurance contract is a contract with the insurance company to pay regarding liability for car accidents, treating patients and taking the insurance money is not illegal activity even for the unlicensed hospital violating the medical law while established. The judgment stating the opinion that medical practitioners cannot be punished according to the medical law prohibiting the receiving of rebate in case that medical practitioners did not receive benefit while the medical institution itself gained an unfair economic benefit also stands out. And the court has ruled that even if the medical institution who received a business suspension is closed, the suspension is still effective in case that the same operator opens a new medical institution in the same place, ruled on the requirement to conduct a medical service outside of the medical institution that the doctor opened and ruled that the administrative penalty cannot be conducted prior to the conviction on charge of violating the medical law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.149-179
• /
• 2010

In November 2007, the Korean Constiutional Court held that a joint penal provision in which the individual employer is punished when his or her employee is determined to have committed a crime was unconstitutional, because the joint penal provision had no contents for the culpability of an individual employer and thus violated the constitutionally protected principle of culpability. After the Korean Constitutional Court's judgment, since December 2008 the Ministry of Justice began to change the old joint penal provision into the new revised joint penal provision. On January 2010, the old joint penal provisions of 110 laws were revised. The new revised joint penal provision adds only an additional sentence: "If a juristic person, an entity or an individual perform due care and supervision over its employee for the prevention of such a crime, it will be exempted from the punishment". But an presumption of negligence clause that is added in the new revised joint penal provision is still vacuum in concerned with supervision responsibility. Probably the new form of penal provision, that is understood to be a kind of the presumption of negligence, could let the burden of proof be changed from the public prosecutor to the accused, in other words employer-side. Especially, when joint penal provision is applied to hospital as administrative punishment, according to the hospital is a (juridical) foundation or not, the application of the joint penal provision is different and unfaithful. In my opinion, therefore, a corporation liability could be considered according to various liability of employee's business and the crime its employee committed because of an organizational failure of the corporation.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.10 no.11
• /
• pp.294-303
• /
• 2010

Unexpected results caused by medical service are defined as malpractice, and the doctor must bear the responsibilities following the medical treatment. Malpractice disputes are disputes between patients, who are seen as the only victim in this way, and medical personnel who do not admit to the charges. Unfortunately, in reality, an official approach to mutual understanding and communication in the instance of such disputes does not exit. Based on this background, this study was attempted to prevent similar forms of medical disputes from occurrence and provide fundamental data to prepare by analyzing the medical disputes precedent. Results of the study are as follows: First, For type of medical institution, hospitals accounted for the most part as 62.9%. Second, Among total medical disputes, the cases surgery accounted for 27.8%, violation of duty care accounted for 20.6% and that of medical treatments 11.3%. Third, For a mean agreed amount by medical department, it was the highest in obstetrics & gynecology as 38,384,000 won. In conclusion, the most desirable method of dispute resolution is to prevent a cause of dispute to the root.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.171-209
• /
• 2022

There were also many medical-related rulings in 2021, among which the rulings reviewed in this paper are as follows. The first relates to a case in which the medical record, which is the primary judgment data regarding the presence or absence of medical negligence, has been modified. The court judged whether there was negligence on the basis of the first written medical record without considering the contents of the medical record that was later modified. Next, the ruling on the case of asking for liability for damages for prescription of anti-obesity drugs recognized negligence related to prescription, but denied liability for property damage by denying a causal relationship, and recognized only alimony for violation of the duty of explanation. The a full-bench ruling on the scope of subrogation of the National Health Insurance Corporation, which subrogates the claims for compensation for medical expenses against the perpetrator of the patient, changed the existing precedent that had taken the 'deduction method after offsetting negligence' and judged it as 'the method of offsetting negligence after deduction'. In addition, in the ruling on whether or not there was negligence, the court was not bound by the medical record appraisal result. Lastly, in relation to the National Health Insurance Service's disposition of reimbursement for medical care benefit costs, we reviewed the ruling that discretion should be exercised even when a non-medical person makes a refund to a medical institution opened by a non-medical person. And we also reviewed the ruling that the scope of reimbursement for medical institutions jointly using facilities and manpower specifically should be determined.