• 의료법학
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제42권
• /
• pp.133-160
• /
• 2009

In International trade the buyer and seller are normally separated from on another not only by distance but also by differences in language and culture. It is rarely possible for the performance of obligations to be simultaneous and the performance of contracts therefore calls for trust in a situation in which the parties are unlikely to feel able to trust each other unless they have a longstanding and successful relationship. Thus the seller under an international contract of sale will not wish to surrender documents of title to goods to the buyer until he has at least an assurance of payment, and no buyer will wish to pay for goods until he has received them. A gap of distrust thus exists which is often bridged by the undertaking of an intermediary known and trusted by both parties who will undertake on his own liability to pay the seller the contract price in return for the documents of title and then pass the documents to the buyer in return for the reimbursement. This is a common explanation of the theory behind the documentary letter of credit in which the undertaking of a bank of international repute serves as a "guarantee" to each party that the other will perform his obligations. The independence principle, also referred to as the "autonomy principle", is at the core of letter of credit or bank guarantee law. This principle provides that the letter of credit or bank guarantee is independent of the underlying contractual commitment - that is, the transaction that the credit is intented to secure - between the applicant and the beneficiary ; the credit is also independent of the relationship between the bank and its customer, the applicant. The most important exception to the independence principle is the doctrine of fraud in the transaction. A strict interpretation of the rule that the guarantee is independent of the underlying transaction would lead to the conclusion that neither fraud nor manifest abuse of rights by the beneficiary would constitute an objection to payment. There is one major problem related to "Independent guarantees", namely abusive or unfair callings. The beneficiary may make an unfair calling under the guarantee. The countermeasure of beneficiary's unfair calling divided three cases. First, advance countermeasure namely by contract. In other words, when the formation of the contract, the parties must insert the Force Majeure Clause, Arbitration Clause to Contract, and clear statement to the condition for demand calling. Second, post countermeasure namely by court. Many countries, including the United States, authorize the courts to grant an order enjoining the issuer from paying or enjoining the beneficiary from receiving payment under the guaranty letter. Third, Export Insurance. For example, the Export Credit Guarantees Department is prepared, subject to certain conditions, to cover the risk of unfair calling. Of course, KEIC in Korea is cover the risk of the all things for guarantees. On international projects, contractor performance is usually guaranteed by either a standby letters of credit or Independent guarantee. These instruments will be care the parties.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제30권2호
• /
• pp.37-81
• /
• 2015

인도네시아의 에어 아시아 QZ8501 제트여객기가 2014년 12월 28일, 오전 5시 35분에 인도네시아, Surabaya도시에 있는 Juanda 국제공항을 출발하여 같은 날 8시 반 싱가포르 Changi 국제공항에 도착할 예정이었다. 그러나 인도네시아의 에어아시아(에어버스 A320-200) 여객기는 인도네시아 제 2의 도시인 수라바야공항에서 승개 162명을 태우고 싱가포를 향하여 비행도중 동년 12월 28일 Java 바다에 추락하였다. 인도네시아의 에어아시아 제트여객기의 잔해가 Juanda 국제공항에서 약 66 마일 떨어진 위치에서 발견되었으며 이곳에서 12월 28일 지상에 있는 항공교통관제관 (ATC) 과 조정사간에 교신이 끊겼다. 레이더에서 사라진 여객기 (QZ 8501)에는 승객 155명과 승무원 7명이 탔으며 희생된 여객 가운데에는 155명의 인도네시아어인, 3명의 한국인, 싱가포르인, 말레이시아인, 영국인이 각각 1명이었다. 말레이시아여객기 추락사건을 살피어 본다면, 말레이시아 여객기 (MH370)는 현지 시간 2014년 3월 8일 밤 12시41분 쿠알라룸푸르 국제공항을 출발하여 같은 날 새벽 6시 30분 (현지시간) 중국 베이징수도국제공항에 착륙 할 예정이었다. 그러나 말레이시아 여객기 (MH370) 는 쿠알라룸푸르 국제공항을 출발하여 베이징수도국제공항을 향하하여 비행도중 (쿠알라룸푸르와 북경 간에 비행거리: 4,414km 2,743마일) 갑자기 살아져 3월 8일 남인도양에 추락하였다. 이 말레이시아여객기는 쿠알라룸푸르 국제공항을 이륙한 후 1시간 만에 지상에 있는 항공교통관제관 (ATC) 과 조정사간에 교신이 두절되었으며 이 여객기에 227명의 승객 (15개국)과 12명의 승객이 타고 있었다. 상기 227명의 승객가운데에는 중국인 153명, 말레이시아인이 38명, 인도네시아 인이 7명, 호주인이 6명, 인도인이 5명, 프랑스인이 4명, 미국인이3명, 이란인이2명, 캐나다인이2명, 뉴질랜드인이 2명, 우크라이나인이 2명, 러시아인이 1명, 네덜란드인이 1명, 대만인이 1명이었음으로 중국인 승객이 거의 3분의 2 이상을 차지하고 있었다. 본 인도네시아 및 말레이시아 여객기 추락사건에 있어 승객 및 승무원들은 전원 사망하였고 가해자(국)인 인도네시아 및 말레이시아뿐만 아니라 피해자(국) 인 중국, 한국, 호주인, 인도, 프랑스, 미국, 인도네시아 및 말레이시아 등이 모두 1999년의 몬트리올조약의 가맹국이기 때문에 인도네시아 및 말레이시아의 항공사들은 동 조약 제21조에 따라 손해배상금액으로서 113,100 특별인출권 (SDR, 계산단위, 미화 155,000달러)를 유족들에게 무조건 지급하여야만 된다. 그러나 인도네시아 및 말레이시아 여객기 추락사건에 있어 유족들은 상기 배상금액에 만족하고 있지 않기 때문에 승객사망자에 대한 유족들의 손해배상청구소송 사건에 있어 일부 유족들은 자국법원에 소송을 제기하는 것보다는 손해배상금액을 많이 탈수 있는 미국 법원에 소송을 제기하고 있다. 미국은 현재 국제항공운송에 있어 항공여개운송인의 책임이 국제조약에 따라 유한책임 제도를 채택하고 있지만 국내항공운송에 있어서는 항공여개운송인의 책임이 무한책임제도를 채택하고 있다. 현재 미국법원은 국제 및 국내항공운송을 막론하고 항공여객운송인이 Wilful-misconduct (인식이 있는 중대한 과실) 범하였을 때에 무한책임을 인정하여 손해배상금액에 관한 판결내용이 30만 달러 내지 500만 달러를 상회하고 있음으로 유족들은 몬트리올조약 제33조 (재판관할권) 및 미국에서 제조한 여객기의 결함을 이유로 한 "제조물책임법"에 근거하여 본 소송사건에 있어 일부 유족들은 미국이변호사에 소송사건을 의뢰하여 미국법원에 손해배상청구소송사건을 제기한바 있다. 한편 필자의 의견으로는 1999년의 몬트리올조약 제17조에 규정되어 있는 국제항공운송인의 손해배상책임사유로 bodily injury라고 신체상의 상해만을 규정하고 있어 피해자 보호에 만전을 기할 수가 없음으로 앞으로 ICAO 법률위원회에서 가까운 장래에 몬트리올조약을 개정 할 때에 이 문구를 피해자의 정신적손해도 다 포함될 수 있도록 personal injury 라는 문구로 수정하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다.