• Title/Summary/Keyword: the Supreme Court

Search Result 319, Processing Time 0.022 seconds

Permission of the Claim that Prohibits Military Aircraft Operation Nearby Residential Area - Supreme Court of Japan, Judgement Heisei 27th (Gyo hi) 512, 513, decided on Dec. 8, 2016 - (군사기지 인근주민의 군용기 비행금지 청구의 허용 여부 - 최고재(最高裁) 2016. 12. 8. 선고 평성(平成) 27년(행(行ヒ)) 제512, 513호 판결 -)

  • Kwon, Chang-Young
    • The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
    • /
    • v.33 no.1
    • /
    • pp.45-79
    • /
    • 2018
  • An increase of airplanes and military aircraft operation lead to significant demanding of residential claims by people who live in nearby airports and military bases due to noise, vibration and residential damages caused by aircraft operations. In recent years, a plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the prohibition of using claimant's possessed land as a helicopter landing route, and the Daejeon High Court was in favour of the plaintiff. Although the Supreme Court later dismissed the Appeal Court decision, it is necessary to discuss the case of setting flight prohibited zone. In Japan, the airport noise lawsuits have been filed for a long time, mainly by environmental groups. Unlike the case that admitted residential damages caused by noise, the Yokohama District Court for the first time sentenced a judgment of the prohibition of the flight. This ruling was partially changed in the appellate court and some of the plaintiffs' claims were adopted. However, the Supreme Court of Japan finally rejected such decision from appeal and district courts. Atsugi Base is an army camp jointly used by the United States and Japan, and residents, live nearby, claim that they are suffering from mental damage such as physical abnormal, insomnia, and life disturbance because of the noise from airplane taking off and landing in the base. An administrative lawsuit was therefore preceded in the Yokohama District Court. The plaintiff requested the Japan Self-Defense Forces(hereinafter 'JSDF') and US military aircraft to be prohibited operating. The court firstly held the limitation of the flight operation from 10pm to 6am, except unavoidable circumstance. The case was appealed. The Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the original judgment on the flight claim of the JSDF aircraft, canceled the first judgment, and rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the authority of the Minister of Defense is reasonable since the JSDF aircraft is operating public flight high zone. The court agreed that noise pollution is such an issue for the residents but there are countermeasures which can be taken by concerned parties. In Korea, the residents can sue against the United States or the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of National Defense for the prohibition of the aircraft operation. However, if they claim against US government regarding to the US military flight operation, the Korean court must issue a dismissal order as its jurisdiction exemption. According to the current case law, the Korean courts do not allow a claimant to appeal for the performance of obligation or an anonymous appeal against the Minister of National Defense for prohibiting flight of military aircraft. However, if the Administrative Appeals Act is amended and obligatory performance litigation is introduced, the claim to the Minister of National Defense can be permitted. In order to judge administrative case of the military aircraft operation, trade-off between interests of the residents and difficulties of the third parties should be measured in the court, if the Act is changed and such claims are granted. In this connection, the Minister of National Defense ought to prove and illuminate the profit from the military aircraft operation and it should be significantly greater than the benefits which neighboring residents will get from the prohibiting flight of military aircraft.

Human Embryo Research and Tort Liability (배아연구와 불법행위책임)

  • Seo, Jong-Hee
    • The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
    • /
    • v.12 no.1
    • /
    • pp.227-255
    • /
    • 2011
  • Recently, many nations said "yes" to human embryonic stem cell research, signing an executive order to permit funding for the research in the mame of achieving health and life of humankind. Human Embryo Research is permitted by our Bioethics & Biosafety Act. But, illegal research cannot be divorced from civil liability since it requires the destruction of eggs of fertilized eggs and personal rights of embryo-creator. After all, though we allow to do research embryo, we should control the capacity of abuse of embryo research for embryo-creator. If research violate the law(Bioethics & Biosafety Act or Civil Law, etc), it comes to a delict by pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss. When it comes to pecuniary loss, Human Embryo is not body but special property. Supreme Court maintained a stance that mental suffering is generally deemed as compensable for damages for the loss of property where a person's property right is invaded by a tort or non-performance of obligation. Thus, where mental suffering occurs, which cannot be compensated by recovery of property losses, the situation must be a special circumstance and the injured could claim consolation money for such losses only if the offender knew or would have known of such special circumstances(Supreme Court Decision 96Da31574 delivered on Nov, 26, 1996, etc.). That is to say, Supreme Court regards mental suffering through person's property right invaded by a tort as damages that have arisen through special circumstances. According to Civil law article 393 (2), the injured could claim consolation money for such losses only if only if the offender had foreseen or could have foreseen such circumstances. Also our court will solve through damages for non-pecuniary loss by complementary function of consolation money in that pecuniary loss could be difficult to valuate.

  • PDF

Review of 2012 Major Medical Decisions (2012년 주요 의료 판결 분석)

  • Lee, Jung Sun;Lee, Dong Pil;Yoo, Hyun Jung;Jeong, Hye Seung
    • The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
    • /
    • v.14 no.1
    • /
    • pp.303-354
    • /
    • 2013
  • In 2012, the major jurisdictions regarding medical cases caused the controversial issues towards medical and legal fields by getting the judgments from the Supreme Court, which admitted the exceptional admissibility on discretionary grant. By regarding the serial negligence of medical organizations as a separate tort, the sentences which made up irrationality, were spoken by the court. As a result, if the treatment was made, which did not follow the entered matters in medical documents attached, the court announced the jurisdiction that presumes the negligence, which provided the evidence of negligence; on the other hand, this gave had the burden to medical branch to take great care for medicinal treatment. To be applicable for the Principle of Trust, the doctors have to give and take the necessary information for the treatment process and symptom decisions, which also commented in the court. Thus, this case made it difficult to apply the Principle of Trust and considered all the conditions as tough ones, which eventually induced lesser faults for patients' care. Moreover, the court confirmed that the medical ads sending the emails to the members belong to the internet portal sites, are not the inducing behavior by considering that the actions are only medical ads. Furthermore, in the case of Namsu Kim, the court's interpretation was rather limited the definition for medical practice that announced limited Erweiterung der Strafbarkeit cases by lower courts. As a consequence, it is very interesting whether the Supreme Court may change their position and concerning the duty of explanation, the trend to expand the contents and scopes for the duty of explanation continues by admitting instruction explanation obligation and all the compensations and so on.

  • PDF

A Study on User Needs for Public Access to the Supreme Court Library of Korea (법원도서관의 대국민서비스 개방에 따른 이용자요구 분석연구)

  • Kwak, Seung-Jin;Noh, Younghee
    • Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
    • /
    • v.52 no.3
    • /
    • pp.215-246
    • /
    • 2018
  • As a law library representing the Department of Justice, the Supreme Court Library of Korea collects various domestic and foreign legal information and aims to become more publicly accessible. In 2018, after its relocation to Goyang, Korea, the library has initiated check-out services to citizens and is currently developing a plan to provide services in the legal field. In this study, we have assessed the current situation at the Supreme Court Library as well as public libraries in Goyang. Furthermore, we have surveyed future users and legal experts to formulate a proposal for optimal literary composition and spatial composition, as well as library arrangement. Survey participants expected extensive provision of legal information regarding legal professions and the general public. There was a significant difference in opinion between legal experts and users with respect to resources for the public; general citizens desire more materials related to general topics whereas legal experts expect more law-specific resources such as information regarding judicial precedents and court decisions, research articles. Furthermore, 80% of users expressed interest in utilizing the library; therefore, active efforts to improve its facilities will lead to successful operations of the library.

Acceptance, Modification and Rejection of Paternalism in Korean Medical Law (한국 의료법에서 후견주의 이념의 수용, 변형 그리고 거부 - 치료중단에 대한 법원 판결을 중심으로 -)

  • Kim, Na-Kyoung;Harmon, Shawn H.E.
    • Development and Reproduction
    • /
    • v.14 no.2
    • /
    • pp.143-154
    • /
    • 2010
  • This article analyzes two leading Korean cases which led to opposite conclusions: the Boramae Hospital Case (Korean Supreme Court 2002 Do 995) and the Shinchon Severance Hospital Case (Korean Supreme Court 2009 Da 17471). In doing so, it pays particular attention to the acceptance, modification, and rejection of paternalism, specifically 'physician paternalism' and 'familial paternalism', both of which have long and strongly influenced the Korean medical environment. In Boramae Hospital, the Court emphasized the obligation of the physician in terms of the life of the patient (eg: protecting and preserving the life and welfare of the patient). Its position seemed to be based on the traditional physician paternalism which presupposes the ability of physicians to identify right and wrong choices according to natural laws. However, the Court saw itself as the final arbiter of who identifies and determines the real world content and consequences of that natural law. In short, the Court elevated itself to the supreme guardian of the patient, and held that its decision cannot be overruled by that of the patient's family. So without specifically referring to the importance of the family and the role of familial decisions, both long-observed traditions in medical decision-making in Korea, the Court shifted away from familial paternalism. In Shinchon Severance Hospital, the Court explained the meaning of the patient's powers of self-rulemore concretely, explaining its scope and substance in greater detail. The Court held that one can exercise the right of self-rule, even over issues such as death, in the form of 'previous medical directions'. However, this case does not represent a wholesale acceptance of medical autonomy (ie: it does not accept self-rule unconditionally). Rather, the Court accepted the importance of the opinions and decision of physicians and of the Hospital Ethics Commission, and the Court still retained to itself the authority to review and make alterations to 'material' decision. The Court did not overlook the importance of the decision of the patient's family, but it also did not relinquish its status as supreme guardian, emphasizing the 'objective' nature of a decision from the court.

Analysis of medical disputes in Jeju (제주의 의료분쟁판례분석)

  • Huh, Jung-Sik;Kim, Ki-Young
    • Journal of Medicine and Life Science
    • /
    • v.16 no.1
    • /
    • pp.10-12
    • /
    • 2019
  • Medical disputes can always arise in the medical environment. We aimed to decrease the medical disputes by analysis for causes and results of cases of medical disputes. The cases of medical dispute were found on the homepage of the Supreme Court based on the judgment data which was searched using the keyword 'Jeju, Medical accident' and it was described as the area related to each medical accident. There was total of 13 cases related medical disputes in Jeju. The final states of the patients were different in each causes, but death accounted for 10 cases (76.92%), comatose state for one and disability for two respectively. The cases were 2 related with an injury from a fall. The major cause was violation of medical care obligation. Physician have to learn recent medical knowledge, have competence, and explain the detailed procedures and complications before the procedures dependent on patient autonomy.

Analysis of Dispute Cases According to the Construction Project Phases -Focused on Cases of the Supreme Court and Korean Commercial Arbitration Board- (건설프로젝트 단계별 분쟁사례 분석에 관한 연구 - 대법원 및 대한 상사 중재원 사례를 중심으로 -)

  • Lee, Yi-Do;Park, Jeong-Ro;Kim, Jae-Jun
    • Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference
    • /
    • 2010.05a
    • /
    • pp.185-189
    • /
    • 2010
  • As recent construction project has specialization and high-level of the engineering, Although, It has always uncertainty of agreement and contract enforcement, factors of difficult to predict etc. in each phase. In this process, Various interest groups involved are continuously generated dispute of interest each others. So this paper analyzed the dispute cases in construction projects from the Supreme Court and Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Korea, and then identified the dispute types and causes that occur during all of the construction project phases with their influence analysis. At the result, It will be contributed to the basic data for pre-dispute prevention in the construction projects.

  • PDF

Medico-legal Consideration of Gastric Lavage in Acute Intoxicated Patients -In the Supreme Court 2005.1.28, 2003da14119 (급성 약물중독 환자에서 위세척의 의료법학적 고찰 -대법원 2005.1.28, 2003다1419 판결을 중심으로-)

  • Bae, Hyun-A
    • Journal of The Korean Society of Clinical Toxicology
    • /
    • v.3 no.1
    • /
    • pp.1-10
    • /
    • 2005
  • Gastric lavage is now known to be ineffective, unnecessary or hazardous in some circumstances where it used to be performed as a routine. This article concerns the medico-legal aspect of forced gastric lavage. The Supreme Court 2005.1.28, 2003da14119 is the case where a patient, who ingested the organophosphate insecticide to attempt suicide and refused lavage. At first we discuss the effectiveness or hazards of lavage because a very high degree of proof -of negligence, not error of clinical judgment - would be required. Lavage, with or without the informed consent, performed negligently which result in harm could, of course, give rise to a claim in negligence. A doctor might also be held negligent in failing to perform an act which he/she had a duty to perform.

  • PDF

A Review on Refusal Reasons in Enforcing of Foreign Arbitral Awards (외국중재판정의 집행판결에세 나타난 집행거부사유에 관한 고찰 - 대법원 판례를 중심으로 -)

  • Kim Kyung-Bae
    • Journal of Arbitration Studies
    • /
    • v.14 no.1
    • /
    • pp.213-244
    • /
    • 2004
  • This article studied on international trade dispute of enforcement procedure of foreign arbitral awards at Korean Supreme Court, which is especially related to New York Convention article 5, The key points of most enforcement procedure were about public policy according New York Convention article 5, 2, b and New York Convention article 5, 1. Particularly, Judgement of public policy from Supreme Court represented that the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award is to present and protect basic moral conviction and social order from spoiling, and not only domestic situation but also international stability of transaction should be taken into consideration in judging on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award, which is construed under certain limitation. In this point, you should be understand the concept on refusal reasons in enforcing of foreign arbitral awards

  • PDF

A study on the Duty of Arbitrator's Disclosure - Laying stress on the precedent of Korean supreme court - (중재인의 고지의무에 관한 고찰 - 한국 대법원판례를 중심으로 -)

  • Shin, Han-dong
    • Journal of Arbitration Studies
    • /
    • v.21 no.3
    • /
    • pp.3-20
    • /
    • 2011
  • An arbitrator is an impartial person chosen to decide the issue between parties engaged in a dispute. But the arbitrator appointed by a party or arbitration institution shall be impartial or independent and should disclose to the administrator any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. If, at any stage during the arbitration, new circumstances arise that may give rise to such doubts, the arbitrator shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the parties and to the administrator. Upon receipt of such information from an arbitrator or a party, an party must challenge any arbitrator whenever circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to arbitrator's impartiality or independence. Under these circumstance, there were two cases declared by the Korean Supreme Court in relation to the cancellation of the arbitration award. One arbitral case was cancelled for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without disclosure arbitrator's impartiality, and the other case was refused to cancel the ward for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without challenge an arbitrator. There are not, however, the standard to decide what is definitely the arbitrator's impartiality or independence and the difference on qualification between arbitrator chosen by an party and neutral arbitrator in korean arbitration law and rules. Nevertheless, korean court require arbitrator to be impartial and independent and the arbitration parties to challenge arbitrator' impartiality or independence.

  • PDF