• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.129-162
• /
• 2008

Nowadays it is important for us to resolute medical disputes. Because a high incidence of medical accidents may be brought about according to many chances of treatment in the operation of health insurance and increasing concern of patient health. Patients and medical doctors have plenty of difficulty in uncomfortable treatment circumstances of a high incidence of medical accidents. It is especially desirable that our society should prevent medical accidents and resolute speedy, fairly and rationally the happened medical disputes. Many legislations were suggested to resolute medical dispute. But legal issue points stress only speedy medical dispute resolution procedure and don't compromise fair and professional procedure. Accordingly these legal arguing points had not been accepted by the National Assembly and people. If the speedy resolution of medical dispute was demanded to solve unsafe treatment circumstances, it is necessitated that the legislation containing legal issue points to procedure is enacted. Of course the interest of patients and doctors to legal issue points must be balanced. Because an arguing points to the reversal of proof burden is consisted of the entity judgement in connection with setting the basis of resolution of medical dispute, the legislation to these is checked carefully.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.207-254
• /
• 2018

The major court rulings delivered in 2017 include the ruling that separated the legal character of denture production agreement signed together with medical care agreement and found a subcontracting dimension in the former, and the ruling that overcame the limitations of the theory of entire appearance of a fetus as discussed in civil law by using the legal principle of insurance which suggests that unborn child insurance takes effect after the contract is signed and the first installment of the premium is paid in. As more court rulings find the medical specialists responsible for accidents and injuries from drugs, some argue that medication counseling by the druggist who makes and dispenses drugs should be upgraded. And with respect to a court ruling that denied the hospital's responsibility for an infection-involving accident even if there were no records on specific measures taken in infection management, some criticized the court for being too conservative in recognizing responsibilities. And with respect to infectious disease management, some criticized the court for its interpretation and application of the facts in the direction of denying the negligence. In addition, some claimed that it is necessary to establish institutional system for hospital infection control and its aid for victims, and to improve the system including the reversal of the burden of proof given the special nature of hospital infections. A number of rulings on the duty to disclose included the one which stated that the specific matter did not require a doctor's explanation as it was explained or the specific medical service would have been performed even if no explanation had been given. There was a greatly controversial ruling over the scope of indemnification, which accepted the occurrence of multiple scars and deformation as disorders while regarding breast as a thoracic organ. And a Supreme Court ruling over interpreting Medical Service Act was criticized as overstepping the boundary allowed in the law.