• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.21 no.4 s.167
• /
• pp.289-291
• /
• 1983

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 2004.06a
• /
• pp.145-159
• /
• 2004

• Korean System Dynamics Review
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.33-60
• /
• 2009

This study explores the limitation in making a causal model through an existing case and proposes an alternative plan to improve a theoretical system of causation modeling. To make a dynamic and actual model, several principles are needed such as reality based analysis of system structures and dynamics, consistent expression of causations, conversion of numerical formulas to causal relations, classification and arrangement of variables by size of concept, etc. However, it is hard to find cases to apply these considerations from existing models in System Dynamics. Therefore, this study verifies errors of derived models from literatures and proposes principles and guides that should be considered to make a sound dynamic model on a causal map. It contributes to making an opportunity for exciting public opinion to improve theory about causal maps, yet it has limitation that the study does not advance forward to the experimental step. For future study, it plans to make up by classifying and leveling causal variables, developing a dynamic BSC model.

• The Journal of the Korean life insurance medical association
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.49-55
• /
• 2008

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.42 no.6
• /
• pp.375-384
• /
• 2016

Objectives: This paper analyzes the intersection of tort law and environmental health in a recent court decision. Methods: This paper analyzes Supreme Court Decision 2011Da7437, Decided on September 4, 2014 and related lower court decisions. Results: The plaintiffs sought financial compensation from the defendants, arguing that air pollutants in gases emitted by vehicles produced by the defendants had caused them to acquire respiratory diseases. The district court highlighted the need to mitigate the burden of proof for the plaintiffs, but proceeded to review whether the plaintiffs proved the actual toxicity levels of the air pollutants, whether the defendant's vehicles were the main source of the emissions, the plaintiff's level of exposure to the pollutants, and causation between the emissions and the injury. By doing so, the district court required the plaintiffs to prove both indirect and direct facts of causation, increasing burden of proof for plaintiffs. The appellate court upheld the district court's decision, adding that the defendant's conduct did not constitute an illegal act because it did not violate the emissions standards set by environmental law. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision, reasoning that the epidemiological evidence cannot establish a direct causation for diseases that lack specificity. Conclusion: This case demonstrates that discussions in environmental health have significance in tort lawsuits. For each fact that the plaintiffs and defendants attempted to prove, environmental health research studies were offered as evidence. In addition, the courts decided the legality of the defendant's conduct based on emission standards set by environmental law.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.251-255
• /
• 2010

A marine accident is caused various legal liability such as compensation for damages on civil law, responsibility on the Criminal Code and administrative sanctions. The results occurred by any acts is not connected directly to the legal responsibility. As a prior condition for these legal liabilities, it is required the causation between the act caused and the occurrence of the effect. It is very difficult to find out the cause in marine accidents, because of trouble of a proof security, the place occurred, time difference between accident and investigation point of time etc.. However, finding out the correct cause is an element important to prevent similar accident and to determine the liability reverted. The logical concept of the causation is not limited, but there is early necessity to limit it in the liability reverted. Therefore, this study aims to suggest reasonable standard to determine liability reverted in marine accidents.

• 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.

• 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.

• Journal of Korean Society of Transportation
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.65-76
• /
• 2013

Traffic accidents at signalized intersections have been increased annually so that it is required to examine the causation to reduce the accidents. However, the current existing accident models were developed mainly by using non-linear regression models such as Poisson methods. These non-linear regression methods lack to reveal the complicated causation for traffic accidents, though they are the right choice to study randomness and non-linearity of accidents. Therefore, it is required to utilize another statistical method to make up for the lack of the non-linear regression methods. This study developed accident prediction models for 4 legged signalized intersections with Poisson methods and compared them with structural equation models. This study used structural equation methods to reveal the complicated causation of traffic accidents, because the structural equation method has merits to explain more causational factors for accidents than others.

• Proceedings of the CALSEC Conference
• /
• 2004.02a
• /
• pp.15-20
• /
• 2004

Positivism ▣Quantitative research ▣Descriptive, predictive, explanatory ▣Quest for university laws ▣Concerned with the empirical testability of theories (·Causal models (if it's not about cause-and-effect, it's not Science)) ▣Assumptions：(·Existence of a priori fixed relationship within phenomena ·Regular patterns of causation ·Independent from human mind(objective, factual)(omitted)