초록
영어
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.
목차
II. 연속된 의료과실을 독자적인 불법행위로 인정한 사건 - 서울고등법원 2012. 3. 29. 선고 2010나93402 판결
III. 의료행위상 과실 증명
IV. 설명의무
V. 손해배상의 범위
VI. 분업화된 의료기관에서 각 진료과목 의사들간의 협력 의무를 인정한 사건 - 부산지방법원 2012. 5. 21. 선고 2010고합507 판결
VII. 인터넷 포털사이트 회원들에게 전자메일로 의료광고를 발송한 것은 환자유인행위가 아니라고 한 사건 - 대법원 2012. 9. 13. 선고 2010도1763 판결
VIII. 의료행위
IX. 임의비급여 - 대법원 2012. 6. 18. 선고 2010두27639, 27646 전원합의체 판결
X. 마치며
참고문헌
ABSTRACT
