• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.33-56
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has cancelled four cases of thirty-nine Arbitral awards made by Korean Commercial Arbitration Board since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Three cases of them were cancelled by the reason of the arbitrator's disqualification in relation to impartiality or independence and the other to arbitration agreement enable to select the lawsuit or arbitration. When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator or has already been appointed as such, he shall without delay disclose all circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence according to the one of the article 13 of Korean Arbitration Act. Upon being notified of the appointment as an arbitrator, each arbitrator shall immediately disclose in writing to the Secretariat any circumstances which might cause reasonable doubt about impartiality or independence. An arbitration agreement shall be made clearly and in writing not to appeal to the court or to be brought in the court. However most of the korean construction contracts have the arbitration agreement clause enable to appeal to the court or the arbitration on government official's advice. Many of these disputes are resolved by litigation after the precedent(Law case number : 2003da318) set by the Supreme Court on August 22, 2003 between the Korea(government) and the Korea Railroad or abandoned its attempt to arbitration. But each year, about four hundreds of arbitration business transactions were resolved arbitration, the voluntary submission of a dispute to an impartial person or persons for final and binding determination. Arbitration has proven to be an effective way to resolve these disputes privately, promptly, and economically.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2017

For recent years, several disputes between Korean consumers and multinational companies have arisen. Since the disputes were big and material that children's safety was at issue, a question started if Korean law properly has protected consumers' rights against multinational companies. While the Korean legal society tried to legislate punitive compensation with this concern, the U.S. Supreme Court reached an interesting case law regarding consumer contracts. A recent trend on consumer contracts in the United States shows that general terms have arbitration clause with class action waiver. As much as international arbitration has worked as the most effective resolution in international commercial disputes, the concept is still foreign and the experts are not approachable to lay individual consumers. However, class action in arbitration can hugely help for lay individual consumers to bring a case before arbitration tribunal. California courts consistently showed the analysis that the practical impact of prohibiting class action in arbitration clause is to ban lay individual consumers from fighting for their rights. However, the Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause shall be enforced as parties agree even if consumers practically cannot fight for their rights in the end. Even though consumer contracts are a typical example of lack of parity and of adhesive contract, the Supreme Court still applies liberalism that parties are equal in power and free to agree. This case law has a crucial implication since Korean consumers buy goods and services from the U.S. and other countries in everyday life. Accordingly, they are deemed to agree on the dispute resolution clauses, which might violate their constitutional right to bring their cases before the adjudication tribunal. This issue could be more important than adopting punitive compensation because consumers' rights are not necessarily governed by Korean law but by the governing law of the general terms and conditions chosen and written by the multinational companies. Thus this paper studies and analyzes the practical reality of international arbitration and influence of arbitration clause with class action waiver with the U.S. Supreme Court and California case laws.

• 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.

• 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.11 no.2
• /
• pp.11-74
• /
• 2010

This article analyzes legal meaning and definition of medical practice examining Korean Supreme Court cases. Until now, there is no right answer about the meaning of medical practice and it is also hard to define of it. Moreover, not only Acts and regulations containing medical practice but also many cases ruling a person who practice medicine, the concept of medical practice involves various meanings. So, it has caused confusion. In order to solve this problem, this article divides the medical practice's meaning into range and nature within prohibition article of the Medical Act about unlicensed personnel who practice medicine. After providing a explanation of the meaning of medical practice according to amendment of the Act, this article disputes the meanings of the several cases following the amendment. And then analyzing non-medical person's unlicensed medical practice and medical person's unlicensed medical practice. In order to provide more accurate legal concept of medical practice when Korean government amends the Medical Act or making policies in this field, this classifying analysis approach should be needed. Looking at the result, in general, Korean Supreme Court has interpreted unlicensed prohibition clause of the Medical Act widely; not only non-medical person's unlicensed medical practice but also medical person's unlicensed medical practice. Therefore, this article suggests that the prohibition clause needs to be careful applying to non-medical practice. Because, in fact, even though there are some necessity of non-medical practice, there are no qualificatory or license system of non-medical practitioner in the Medical Acts or regulations forbidding whole non-medical practices. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has decided medical person's unlicensed medical practice too narrowly, thus it does not keep up with rapid change of medical development and people's demands these days. Regarding this subject, in order to take advantage of medical practitioners effectively and cope with increasing people's medical demands, this article proposes that medical person's unlicensed medical practice only to be prohibited in case of endangering our public health.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.165-196
• /
• 2008

Recently the Supreme Court held that "in cases in which a patient suffering from a mental disorder attempts to commit suicide, fails, and then succeeds in a subsequent attempt, the following circumstances must be present in order to acknowledge reasonable causation between the negligence of the hospital with regards to taking care of the patient and the death of the patient; there must have existed negligence on the part of the hospital with regards to their failure to stop the 1stsuicide attempt, injurious aftereffects must have been caused to the patient by the1stsuicide attempt, and said aftereffects must have been the main cause for the 2nd successful suicide attemtp." This, in effect, lessens the requirements of past holdings of the Supreme Court which held that "to acknowledge reasonable causation between the negligence of the hospital and the patient that commits suicide, the patient must have experienced such severe physical and mental suffering from the previous attempt so that they could not help but choose to commit suicide". The fact that the Supreme Court did not clearly state such changes in their view on this matter should be corrected. Also, the fact that the court only held the hospital liable for damages of less than 50 million won, only calculating damages up to the point when the deceased passed, is inadequate compared to other cases and should be corrected.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.11-36
• /
• 2009

This thesis introduces the trends of korean courts' ruling on damages in medical malpractice cases for past 10 years. First of all, Korean courts' ruling have had a tendency to pay only non-economic damages for not taking the informed consent. If a doctor cannot get the informed consent from a patient, he compensate only non-economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights of patient. It's enough for the plaintiff to prove the infringement of self-determination rights, if the plaintiff just want to get non-economic damages. The Korean Supreme court have ruled that if plaintiffs want to get economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights or informed consent, plaintiffs must prove that the infringement of self-determination rights is the proximate cause of the economic damages of patient. There is another tendency for the Korean Supreme court to limit the damages in medical malpractice cases on the ground of patient's diseases' dangerousness or patient's idiosyncrasy. In the past courts often limit the damages only to 70~80% of total damages, but now a days courts mostly limit the damages to 20~30%. This thesis also introduce the Korean courts' trends about Valuing damages in personal injury actions awarded for gratuitously rendered nursing and medical care.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.115-150
• /
• 2009

The Article 17 (1) of the Medical Service Act states that no one but medical doctor, dentist or herb doctor shall prepare medical certificate, post-mortem examination, certificate or prescription. Though medical certificate, post-mortem examination or certificate is a private document issued by doctor personally, it is accepted as reliable as public document. Therefore, for medical certificate, post-mortem examination or certificate, unlike other private document to guarantee authenticipy of the content, the Article 233 of the Criminal Act states the Crime of Issuance of Falsified Medical Certificates. In other words, the Criminal Act Article 233 states that If a medical or herb doctor, dentist or midwife prepares false medical certificate, post-mortem examination or certificate life or death, one shall be punished by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than three years, suspension of qualifications for not more than seven years, or a fine not exceeding thirtht million won. The subject of the Crime of Issuance of Falsified Medical Certificates is only a medical or herb doctor, dentist or midwife and the eligibility requirements are specified in the Medical Service Act. Medical certificate is the medical document to be issued by medical doctor to certify the health status and show the Jugdement about the result of the diagnosis, Post-mortem examination is the document to be listed by medical doctor to confirm medically about human body or dead body, and Certificate life or death is a kind of medical certificate to verify the fact of birth or death, the cause of death, such as Birth Certificate, Certificate of Stillbirth or Certificate of Dead Fetus. To constitute the crime of Issuance of Falsified Medical Certificates, it is necessary for the contents of the certificate to be substantially contrary to the truth, as well as it is needed the subjective perception that the contents of the certificate are false. The Supreme Court Decision 2004DO3360 Delivered on March 23, 2006 declared that although the Defendant did not MRI scan, etc. for precise observation about the disability status of Mr Park, it was difficult to believe that the contents of the Disability Certificate of this case were contrary to the objective truth or the defendant had perception that the contents of the certificate were false. I don't agree with the Supreme Court Decision, because the Supreme Court confirmed the decision by the court below despite the Supreme Court should have made the court below retry the reason why the Defendant did not MRI scan, etc. for precise observation about the disability status of Mr Park.