• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.195-204
• /
• 2007

It is a general principle that the plaintiff takes burden of proof about negligence and causation in a civil compensation litigation. And it is the same in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Korean courts have made diverse efforts to mitigate the plaintiff's duty to prove in medical malpractice lawsuits under the name of justice and impartiality. One of those theoretical attempt is 'presumption of causation'. The Supreme Court, since 1995, has developed a new logic for the theory of 'presumption of causation' which is characterized by a phrase "layman's common sense". The Court presumes the defendant's negligence and causation when the plaintiff alleges and proves the facts which can be pointed out and expressed by a layman with common sense. And if the defendant fails to prove that the result was caused by other fact than own medical activities, the defendant shall be defeated. I realize that this theory has problem for justice and impartiality. I would say that two fators should be considered and added to this logic. First,are defendant's acts generally belonging to gross negligence which would cause that kind of bad result? Second, is it recognized that there would be the causation generally and statistically between the cause and the result?

• Asian Journal of Business Environment
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.5-15
• /
• 2017

Purpose - The objective of the present study is to examine the relationship between intellectual preferences of individuals and the level of readiness for change according to Ned Herman. Research design, data and methodology - For this, Iranian Supreme Audit Court was selected as a case study in this research and it was carried out to evaluate research variables and test hypotheses using standard questionnaires of intellectual preferences and readiness for change based on the methodology. It should be remarked that only 32 managers of Audit Court were willing to participate in this research and responded to the questionnaires. Results - The outputs of the performed tests showed that although there is not a significant relationship between the individuals with intellectual preferences for class A and readiness for change them, approaching the intellectual preferences of the individuals to D region increases the readiness for change them. On the other hand, whatever individuals have intellectual preferences for branches in groups B and C, the level of preparedness for change is low. Conclusions - The results of this research have made a clear policy for the effective utilization in human resources based on their intellectual preferences model for management with organizational changes.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Costume
• /
• v.29
• /
• pp.171-182
• /
• 1996

This thesis is concerned with the study of the court attire the typical attire of the ju-dicial world in a point of time that more than 100 years have passed since the introduction of the modern judical system. In recognition of the fact that compiled data of the official uni-form or attire in Korea are insufficient this study placed its signification on the provision of information with focus on attire. As a result of studying court attire in Korea the conclusion was made as follows: Firstly Official attires in Yi Dynasty were divided by wearing embroidered insignia on the breast and the back of an official robe ac-cordint to court rank as well as by wearing Sa-mo in wadded clothes of Dan-ryeong and attaching all sorts of appurtenances including bands and shoes The Minister of Justice was equipped with Ho-pyo Dae-sa-heon equipped with Hae-chi the mayor of Seoul equipped with Un-an In the era of the Kng Young-jo the minister of Justice had no change in its of-ficial robe but the mayer(Pan-yun) of Seoul (Han-sung-bu) had Un-an(wild geese in clouds) changed into Un-hak In the King Ko-jog era the minister of Justice had Ho-pyo changed into Ssang-ho and the mayor of Seoul had Un-hak changed into Ssng-hak on embroideved insignia on the breast and back of an official robe. Laws and regulations concerning court attire began with the In-judgement Full-dress Uni-form Requlation for official-level Clerical Staff below the ordinary staff the Issue No. 14 of the Royal Ordinance in 1906 provided as $\ulcorner$the matter cincerning the Dress Regulation of the Tribunal staff of the Cho-sun Government-General$\lrcorner$the Issue No. 222 of the Royal Ordi-nance in 1911 and changed into$\ulcorner$the Regu-lation on the Dress of Judge Prosecutor At-torney and Law Count Clerk$\lrcorner$the Issue No. 12 of the Supreme Court Rule in 1953 affter the establishment of Korean Government since emancipation from the Japanese rule and into $\ulcorner$the Regulation concerning the Court Attire of Judge and law Court Clerical Staff$\lrcorner$the Issue No. 516 of the Supreme Court Rule in 1966. The judicial system in Korea is the system introduced from the foreign country rather than autogenously developed. And it came to pass through the Japanese colonial period it the beginning that it took root in Korea n was not stabilized in harmony with our native tradition. Accordingly the attare regulation in the judicial system took root in our society by accepting the Japanese attire regulation as it was and judical officials have come to wear the count attire similar to that of the Japanese imperialist era due to its influence though Korean independent goverment was established together with liberation form the Japanese rule. The more regrettable thing is that the current court attire has maintained the form greatly influenced by the U. S. court attire. Fortunately as the judicial circles have recently raised their voices for change in the court attire it has been told that the forma-tion of a meeting for a new court attire has been under way. The birth of the court attire into Which our tradition is sublimated is expected. This study end up with thinking that the must Korean thing is the most global thing in this era that people in the world are clamoring for globalization.

• Journal of Software Assessment and Valuation
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.17-24
• /
• 2019

Use without permission of font files is a social problem. In the meantime, our court recognized font files as computer programs. Is the font file a computer program? This recognition arises from the inability to distinguish between computer programs and data. Expert recognition, on the other hand, does not recognize font files as computer programs. In this regard, there was a case in 2014 that INI files were not computer programs, but only data files. So, the attitude of the Supreme Court in 2001 only makes it difficult to distinguish between computer programs and data. The Supreme Court's decision needs to be changed. In addition, a new legal system should be in place to protect font files.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.173-173
• /
• 2016

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.211-253
• /
• 2005

Recently, the Korean Supreme Court released two important decisions concerning damages for the pain and suffering from Aircraft noise. The local people who are living near the Air Force practice site at Maehyang-ri and the Kimpo International Airport brought lawsuits against the Korean government requesting damages for their financial loss from the severe noise and the damages for their pain and suffering. Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered physical malfunctions, extreme disturbances and the reduction of property values from the extreme noises which were daily repeated. District Court of Seoul Province did not allow plaintiffs all but the damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiffs could not prove the causation between their financial loss and the noise. The Supreme Court confirmed the lower court's decision. Article V of the National Compensation Act (analogous to the Federal Tort Claims Act of the USA) reads, "the government shall be liable for any loss caused by the defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities." In the two cases, the major issue was whether the government's establishment or maintenance of Air Force practice site and the airport was defective because they caused serious noise to surrounding neighbors. Previously, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause "defect on establishment or maintenance of public facilities" as failure of duty to provide safety measures to the degree generally required to ordinary manager. However the Court at this time interpreted differently that the defect could be found if the facility caused to any person loss to the degree intolerable. In the two cases the Court confirmed the lower court's finding that noise level at the site was severe enough to be intolerable. This standard is based on the severity of the loss rather than the failure of duty. It became easier for plaintiffs to prove the cause of action under this interpretation. The consequence of the ruling of these two cases is 'rush to the courtroom' by the local people at similar situations. The ruling of these two cases was not appropriate both in theory and in consequence. The Korean tort system is basically based on the theory of negligence. Strict liability is exceptional only when there is special legislation. The Court created strict liability rule by interpreting the Art. V of the National Compensation Act. This is against the proper role of the court. The result of the cases is also dismal. The government was already sued by a number of local people for damages. Especially the Department of Defense which is operating many airports nationwide has financial hardship, which will cause downsizing military practice by the Air Force in the long run, This is no good to anyone. Tens of millions of dollars which might be used for compensation might be better used to prevent further noise problem surrounding airports.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.613-630
• /
• 2004

Conciliation is one of the most effective ADR(alternative dispute resolution) which takes the place of civil procedure. It is achieved with disputants' independent will. The disputants negotiate each other, and make peaceful settlement. If a compromise is effected between the two, it regards the compromise as a judgement of the Supreme Court. This effect on the conciliation is afford a basis for the private autonomies. But nowadays, the practical use of the private autonomies is not thoroughgoing enough in our country. It is a matter of no uncommon occurrence for the member of a conciliation commission to form a conclusion about the dispute and to persuade the disputants to accept the conclusion. Even the judges have a tendency to conduct a conciliation like civil procedure. Under these circumstances, it's harsh to the disputants that a compromise in the conciliation has an effect like the judgement of the Supreme Court. So you should reconsider carefully the role or service of a conciliation commission. The role of a conciliation commission must be to guarantee an atmosphere of freedom, and for disputants to negotiate without restraint. So the members of a conciliation commission should make an offer the disputants the information on the members and proceedings of the conciliation. It will make the disputants have a firm belief that the members are fair and conciliation will be progressed in a fair. Moreover they have to notify the disputants of the estimated norms which is concerned in the dispute, too. It will facilitate the negotiation and compromise, and will justify claim preclusion(res judicata) which is based on Korean Civil Conciliation Law(Article 29) says that conciliation has the full force and effect of a civil judgement of the Supreme Court.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.63-89
• /
• 2014

In 1976, the Dalkon Shield-intrauterine device injured several thousand women in U.S.A. which caused the changes of medical deivce regulation. The Medical Device Regulation Act or Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) was introduce. As part of the process of regulating medical devices, the MDA divides medical devices into three categories. The class II, and III devices which have moderate harm or more can use the section 510 (k), premarket notification process if the manufacturer can establish that its device is "substantially equivalent" to a device that was marketed before 1976. In 21 U.S.C. ${\S}$ 360k(a), MDA introduced a provision which expressly preempts competing state laws or regulations. After that, the judicial debates had began over the proper interpretation and application of Section 360(k) In February 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riegel v. Medtronic that manufacturer approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s pre-market approval process are preempted from liability, even when the devices have defective design or lack of labeling. But the Supreme Court ruled in Medtronic Inc. v. Lora Lohr that the manufactures which use the section 510 (k) process cannot be preempted and in Bausch v. Stryker Corp. that manufactures which violated the CGMP standard are also liable to the damage of patient at the state courts. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Wyeth v. Levine that patients harmed by prescription drugs can claim damages in state courts. This may cause a double standard between prescription drugs and medical devices. FDA Preemption is the legal theory in the United States that exempts product manufacturers from tort claims regarding Food and Drug Administration approved products. FDA Preemption has been a highly contentious issue. In general, consumer groups are against it while the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers are in favor of it. This issues also influences the theory of product liability of U.S.A. Complete immunity preemption is an issue need to be more declared.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.59-90
• /
• 2015

Since 1855, the federal courts of the United States have been empowered to assist in the gathering of evidence for use before foreign tribunals. Today, the source of that authority is 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$ which permits the courts to order a person "to give [ ] testimony... or to produce a document ... for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal${\cdots}$ ." It was generally assumed, until the United States Supreme Court's decision of Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in 2004, that arbitration tribunals were not "foreign tribunals" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$. While the issue in Intel did not involve an arbitration tribunal, a statement by the Supreme Court in dicta has called into question the exact parameters of the words "foreign tribunal," resulting in a split of opinion among the federal courts of the United States. This article explores the legislative history of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$, examines the United States Supreme Court decision in Intel, and discusses the split among the courts of the United States regarding the interpretation of "foreign tribunal." The article further surveys emerging issues: is an arbitration tribunal in a case involving foreign parties and seated in the United States a "foreign tribunal"; does agreeing to the use of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration circumscribe the use of 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$; can a party be ordered to produce documents located outside the United States; and is there a role for judicial estoppel in determining whether an application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ${\S}1782$ should be granted?

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.12 no.5
• /
• pp.188-198
• /
• 2012

Church is one of organizations recognized not as corporation but as private association and therefore its identity and possession of properties must be confirmed by the general theories of the civil law in relation not to corporation but to private association. Different from corporation, the internal relations of private association is primarily regulated by the articles of association. When there is no article of association, ordinary resolution and provisions for incorporated association in the civil law are applied by inference. As for the debt of private association, all the members own it in a quasi-joint manner (article 275 and 278). For the last 50 years, the judicial precedents of the Supreme Court has permitted the partition of church for the Protestant church and ruled that the relationship of properties at the time of partition is the joint ownership by church members at the time of partition. This ruling is different from that of corporation and ordinary principles of law. However, a new judicial precedent (the Supreme Court, 2006. 4. 20, 2004다37775) prescribes that different from corporation, the partition of private association is not allowed. Thus, in order to settle the dispute of private association, the Supreme Court changes its traditional standpoint of allowing partition into denying it. This ruling seems to reflect the necessity of settling dispute above all.