• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.140-167
• /
• 2008

This study analyzes the legal reasoning of Seoul Central District Court, which imposed legal liability on portals for posting defamatory user replies to news articles, written and provided by the news media, onto their 'News Windows'. Saddling portals with the burden of verifying the facts associated in news articles and imposing the legal obligation as a publisher entail a grave risk of impairment of free flow of information and freedom of expression. Of course, it would ultimately result in tightening up private censorship of information which the Constitution does not allow, and funker keep portals from posting even news articles in which expressed views and opinions are lawful. When judging whether portals should assume liability fur libelous user replies to news articles, it is necessary to distinguish the territory under the direct authority of portals from cafes and bulletin boards managed by third parties. In addition, imposing legal liability above the level of common carrier should be limited to the cases; when portals arbitrarily change the contents of news articles or when the articles portals changed contain libelous contents. Even if those conditions are met, the altered contents should obviously constitute libel. Only in the presence of proof that portals knew the illegality of news articles and did not take proper steps including deleting those replies, should portals not be considered as an accomplice. Nor should portals take responsibility for users' defamatory replies for those reasons.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.143-163
• /
• 2018

Implant procedure belongs to so called a commercialized medical treatment, its procedure is simple and clear, and the possibility of success is almost 100%. In addition, it is a selective method rather than an inevitable method for a patient's health, so the importance of liability for explanation is especially emphasized for protection of autonomous decisions by patients. Considering these characteristics, the plaintiff in the relevant case said that the contract of implant procedure has the characteristic of subcontract, and only the failure of implant itself and the violation of liability for explanation should be the defendant's fault liability. In addition, although the above procedure contract is considered as delegation rather than subcontract, whether it's the defendant's malpractice should be judged by general people's common sense rather than average people in the industry. Therefore, if all the implanted teeth were removed due to bleeding and pains, and the patient suffered from dysaesthesia during the process, the defendant's malpractice is fully proved. When the judgements of implant medical malpractice were researched, the court doesn't consider implant contract as subcontract, but it judges dentist's malpractice by whether the implant itself is successful, so it seems that the court acknowledges similar characteristics with subcontract whose purpose is completion of work to some degree. In addition, considering the detailed contents of presented medical malpractices, it seems that judging medical malpractice is based on the common sense of general people. Therefore, the argument of the plaintiff is valid when the fact the adjustment amount is relevant to the amount that the plaintiff initially claimed is considered even though the relevant case was decided to be compulsory mediation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.151-180
• /
• 2015

South Korea is advancing the unmanned aircraft private commercial business. Unmanned aerial vehciles industry has been developing for several years also abroad. However, unmanned aerial vehciles industry, can be an accident occurs. Accident of unmanned aerial vehciles to occur material damage and casualties. Particularly if an accident because of a defect in the unmanned aerial vehciles has occurred, it is necessary to analyze the liability for this. The defect accidents unmanned aerial vehciles has been the different manufacturing and design product is intended, whether it is important how to prove to this. This is because, unmanned aerial vehciles are designed in any intent of the original, it is impossible to victims know. So imposing a responsibility to prove the design by the manufacturer intended consumer is not fair. Moreover, the consumer, it is necessary to prove only that the product is one that normally dangerous lacked safety can be expected. This is a detailed issue of judgment of defects of unmanned aerial vehciles, the manufacturer to bear the accountability. In the case where the defect on the display of the unmanned aircraft is a problem, and if it reasonable indication, it is not appropriate to be required to prove that it was possible to prevent damage to the victim.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 2019

Due to the nature of medical malpractice lawsuits, it is difficult for medical consumers, who are weak in getting information when it comes to health care problem, to secure all information inside the hospital. Even if you are confident about the hospital infection, it is true that people have difficult to obtain medical testimony by expert. It is seen as no easy task to testify to the malpractice of colleagues who work in the same field not only in our country but also abroad, when a doctor gives negative testimony to another doctor in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Although few health care providers will be motivated to take medical care from the outset, testimony or statements from a medical practitioner can have a significant impact on the outcome of a lawsuit, as it is impossible for the patient to control or be aware of the whole process of medical conduct, especially in the event of a hospital infection and the victim. If the hospital can prove the causality of damages caused by negligence of the employees or supervision of the hospital itself in a medical suit caused by the infection, the level of protection of the victim could be raised further. We sought to find a solution to these problems by looking at the provisions of other laws related to hospital infection. In particular, as the comparative legal review regarding hospital infection, Germany's legislative precedent sets a medical contract as a typical civil law contract, so it is thought that looking at German civil law regulations also has implications for Korean law. We also tried to improve the French Special Act 'rights of patients' and we can look at the consequent changes in court cases. Finally, the content of the U.S. case's and the theory of 'the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur' in relation to it show that doctors and hospitals have been forced to shift the burden of proof through this theory. This paper tried to find out the implications of mitigating the burden of proof by reviewing various issues that might be related to medical litigation of hospital infection from a comparative point of view.

• 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.19 no.2
• /
• pp.173-207
• /
• 2018

Japan is a super-aged society where the proportion of the people aged over 65 is exceeded 20%. Therefore, there are many accidents that occur in long-term care facilities in Japan, and there are many civil litigations. The Japanese court has acknowledged in many cases that the long-term facility is responsible for the damage to the elderly who is injured in the facility. The cases can be divided into ① tumbling down, ② wandering, ③ suffocation, ④ bedsore, and ⑤ accidents among the facility-users. In most cases, the court found that the facility violated its obligation to protect their users. This is not only the case where the manager or the employee of the facility violates the obligation to watch and care for the elderly, but in some cases, the failure to maintain the human and material system itself is recognized. The basis for such judgment is whether the facility can predict the possibility of an accident and whether the facility has taken measures to prevent accidents. Also, the Japanese court recognizes the transfer of burden of proof in order to expedite the victims' rights. However, the liability of the facility for damages should not be so heavy that it would be hesitant to allow a person to enter the facility and make a contract.

• 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.