헤파린 투여 중 칼슘 투여가 혈액응고 기전에 미치는 영향

김일룡,김근형,김병선,윤영민,이경갑,Kim, Il-ryong,Kim, Gon-hyung,Kim, Byungsun,Yun, Young-min,Lee, Kyoung-kap 대한수의학회 2004 大韓獸醫學會誌 Vol.44 No.3

This study was performed to investigate the effects of calcium administration on the blood coagulation mechanism through APTT in the calf. Five male calves (70~90 kg) were used in this experiment. In the control group, heparinized normal saline (1 IU/kg/min) had been infusing into the jugular vein for 100 minutes. For the analysis of calcium effects on the APTT, the same solutions had been infusing during the first 40 minutes, subsequently the solution including calcium gluconate (3.3 mg/ml/min) had been infusing for 60 minutes. Blood samples were serially collected every 10 minutes for the APTT and platelets count and every 20 minutes for the calicum level during the infusion. In the calcium-treated group, after 70 minutes the APTT ratio (APTT heparin/APTT baseline) was higher than the therapeutic range. APTT was significantly increased at 50, 60 and 70 minutes in the calcium-treated group as compared to the control group (p<0.01). In the control group, calcium level was decreased significantly after heparin infusion (p<0.01). The platelet count was gradually decreased without significant variation in the both control and calcium-treated groups. These results suggested that APTT is slightly increased in combined heparin and calcium administration.

판결주문의 형식과 기판력의 객관적 범위의 관계

김일룡(Kim, Il-Ryong) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2011 東亞法學 Vol.- No.53

기판력의 객관적 범위를 확정함에 있어서는 소송물이론을 일률적으로 적용하기에 앞서 민사소송법 제216조 제1항의 “확정판결은 주문에 포함된 것에 한하여 기판력을 가진다.”는 문언에 충실하게 해석하여야 한다. 즉 사실관계가 이미 판결주문에 기재되어 있는 경우에는 그 사실관계에 대해서는 기판력이 있다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 따라서 어떠한 권리관계의 원인에 불과할 뿐인 내용에 기판력이 있다고 하거나 채권계약의 존부나 소유권의 귀속과 같은 사실관계가 전소의 판결주문에 기재되어 있음에도 이에 대해서는 전소판결의 기판력이 미치지 아니한다는 일부 판례의 입장은 물론, 사실관계는 기판력의 범위를 정하는 기준이 될 수 없다는 일지설의 입장은 타당하다고 할 수 없다. 판결주문의 형식을 기준으로 보면, 판결주문에 사실관계가 기재되는 경우인 소유권이전등기의 판결은 물론, 기타 재산권에 관한 의사진술을 명하는 판결, 가등기에 기한 본등기의 판결, 전세권설정등기, (근)저당권설정등기, 지상권설정등기, 채권양도에 관한 의사의 진술을 명하는 판결 및 후발적 실효사유로 인한 말소등기의 판결, 채권에 대한 확인판결, 사해행위취소판결의 경우에는 어떤 소송물이론을 취하든 상관없이 판결주문에 기재된 전소의 원인사실에 기판력이 있다고 보아야 한다. 나아가 원고승소의 경우에 위와 같이 판결주문에 사실관계가 기재되는 사안이라면 청구기각 판결이 난 경우에도 원고승소의 경우와 동일한 범위로 기판력을 정하는 것이 타당할 것이다. 이러한 경우를 제외하고 사실관계가 판결주문에 적시되지 않는 사안일 때 비로소 소송물이론을 적용하여 기판력의 객관적 범위를 정하는 것이 타당하지 않을까 생각한다. 이렇게 해석하는 것이 민사소송법 제216조 제1항의 법문에 충실한 해석일 뿐만 아니라 한편으로 법원과 당사자의 심리의 편의와 신속한 결론을 이끌어내면서도 다른 한편으로 전소 판단이 부당한 경우 후소에서 이를 시정할 기회를 넓히려는 기판력 제도의 취지와도 부합한다고 본다. For the purpose of determining the objective extent of res judicata, the stipulation in the Article 1, Clause 216 of the Civil Procedure Act, “A final and conclusive judgement shall have the effect of res judicata in so far as the matters contained in the text thereof are concerned”, must be fully considered prior to the subject matter of a lawsuit theory. In this sense, it is only natural to regard that, in the case when all the facts have been described in the text of a judicial decision all the facts have the res judicata effect. In the case of all the facts having been described in the text of a judicial decision, the position of an opinion that claims that all the facts cannot be a standard for determining the extent of res judicata cannot be said as being reasonable. Furthermore, the position of the judicial precedent that claims that final judgement does not have res judicata effect on the in/existence of contract, which becomes the origin of a certain right, or belonging of ownership right cannot be said as being reasonable. On the contrary, the position of an opinion that claims that the extent of res judicata should be determined upon considering all the facts in every case, whether or not all the facts have been described in the text of a judicial decision, is also unreasonable because of its possibility to excessively draw in the determination of fact essential to the judgment when interpreting the text of a judicial decision. In short, the following cases should be seen as facts of cause of the final judgement having res judicata effect regardless of whichever theory of lawsuit object is applied: the case in which all the facts are described in the text of a judicial decision ? judgement for not only ownership transfer registration but also for ordering expression on other property right; judgement on the principal registration based on provisional registration; judgement on right to lease on a deposit basis act of establishment registration, mortgage act of establishment registration and superficies act of establishment registration; judgement of ordering expression on transfer of credit; judgement on registration for cancellation from subsequent cause of effect; declaratory judgement on credit; fraudulent cancellation judgement. In addition, the reason for judgement or the content on cause of request should be considered at the minimum level needed to determine only in the case when the extent of res judicata cannot be determined because of the transparency and conciseness of the text of a decision. Such would be an interpretation faithful to the stipulation of the positive law for disallowing res judicata for the determination of fact essential to the judgment except for offset.

조직과실의 법리 : 의료조직을 중심으로

김일룡(Kim, Il-Ryong) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2020 의생명과학과 법 Vol.24 No.-

가내수공업이 경제를 이끌던 민법의 제정당시와는 달리, 현재 우리는 기업 등 법인이 거대조직체로서 다수의 인력과 설비를 사용하여 제품을 생산하거나 서비스를 제공하는 시대에 살고 있다. 이와 같이 조직체가 시스템을 통하여 다수의 인력과 설비를 운용함으로써 제품이나 서비스를 창출하는 것이 일반화되자, 그 과정에서 타인에게 손해를 가하는 경우도 늘어나고 있다. 이 경우에 산출된 품목이 제조물일 때에는 무과실책임의 법리에 기반을 둔 제조물책임법이 민법의 특별법으로 존재하므로 이를 적용하여 조직체에 대하여 직접 손해배상책임을 추궁할 수 있다. 그러나 그것이 제조물이 아닌 1차 생산품 또는 서비스인 경우에는 제조물책임법의 적용대상이 아니므로 민법상 과실책임의 원칙이 적용될 수밖에 없다. 이 때 조직체에 대하여 책임을 묻기 위한 현행 민법의 규정으로는 법인의 불법행위책임(민법 제35조), 이행보조자의 고의･과실에 대한 채무자의 책임(민법 제391조), 사용자책임(민법 제756조) 등이 존재하는데, 이 규정들의 공통점은 조직체에 대하여 책임을 묻기 위해서는 먼저 피용자 등 조직의 구성원에게 불법행위책임(민법 제750조)이 인정되어야 한다는 점이다. 피용자 등 자연인에게 불법행위책임이 인정되지 않으면 조직체 또한 손해배상책임을 부담하지 않는다는 기존의 해석론은 조직체가 다수의 인력과 설비를 시스템적으로 장악하여 제품이나 서비스를 창출하고 있는 현실을 제대로 반영하지 못하고 있으므로 조직체가 독자적으로 일반불법행위책임을 부담하는 법리를 개발할 필요가 있다. 이를 위해서는 민법 제750조의 불법행위의 요건 중 주관적 책임요소를 객관적 위법성요소로 재해석할 필요가 있다할 것인데, 이는 서비스를 제공하는 의료조직에 대하여 과실책임을 묻는 경우에도 마찬가지이다. Differently from the time of enacting the civil law when the cottage industry leaded the economy, today, we are living in the age that the corporation such as enterprise, etc. is producing the products or providing the services utilizing multiple manpower and facilities. As producing the products or creating the services by the organization operating the multiple manpower and the facilities through the system is generalized, the case that the damage is made to the others in that process is being increased. In this case, if the product produced is manufactured goods, as Product Liability Act, which is based on the principle of liability without fault, exists as a special law of Civil Law, the organization can be accused for liability for manage directly by applying that. However, in case of primary product or the services not the manufactured goods, as it is not application subject of Product Liability Act, the principle of liability with fault in Civil Law should be applied. In this case, for the provisions of the current civil law, there are Unlawful act of judicial person (Article 35 of Civil Law) , Liability of obligor for the intention or negligence of performance assistant (Article 391 of Civil Law), Employer s liability for damages (Article 756 of Civil Law), etc. and the something in common of these provisions is that to hold the organization responsible, the tort liability (Article 750 of Civil Law) of the organization member should be recognized first. So, the existing interpretation that the organization evades the liability for damage unless the tort liability of the natural person such as employee, etc. is recognized although the organizations are creating the products or the services by taking over the multiple manpower and facilities systematically is not reflected the reality, which is same in case of medical organization. To solve this, in case of hold the medical organization responsible for direct liability with fault, as the precedent interprets the fault as an element of the tort as the violation of objective duty of care not as a subjective psychological state, it needs to apply the provision of Article 750 of Civil Law matching with the epochal change such as interpreting that the requirements of the responsibility, which is the premise for that, is not necessary.

민사소송법상 증거결정절차의 개선 방안

김일룡(Kim, Il-Ryong) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2010 圓光法學 Vol.26 No.1

In litigating family law cases before a jury, Anglo-American common law limits the evidence which is presentable to a jury. This procedural limitation derives from the desire to prevent the jury, which is composed of lay persons, of reaching an erroneous finding which is not based on the evidence presented. One of these evidentiary limitations is the concept of materiality. Materiality means that the evidence establishes or negates a substantive element of the law that is applicable in the lawsuit before the court. Accordingly, the judge will exclude evidence that is not material prior to its submission to the jury. Another evidentiary limitation that has developed in the common law is relevancy. This concept holds that only evidence that is probative, i.e. evidence that has an influence on the finding of facts which actually affects the outcome of the trial. A judge will exclude evidence according to this principle when the evidence has no influence on the outcome. These two principles of the common law were codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975 in order to ensure the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system. However, the two principles were combined into the single concept of relevancy. In other words, Section 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that “relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Scholars have described the section 401 relevancy requirement as a “natural relevancy” or “logical relevancy.” Additionally, section 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence authorizes a judge to exclude relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time, and although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence, and, therefore, this rule is described as “legal relevancy” or “pragmatic relevancy.” Thus, the requirements for the submission of evidence that is either natural relevant or legal relevant to a jury should use relevant criteria. These requirements are generally applied loosely, but find clarification in the criteria used by the Court in admitting the evidence and in the rationale put forth in the objection by the party opposed to the admission of such evidence. Our legal system contains a possibility that a trial becomes substantially coarse due to this situation. There are also worries that the evidence offer rights and evidence objection rights are too perfunctory from the standpoint of the person concerned and can result in distrust of the judicial system by the common people. Accordingly, parties request evidence, and if a court judges and treats according to a relevancy criterion in a procedure that chooses the evidence, the person concerned tries to raise objections on preclusion or admissibility in order to get a guarantee of predictability on the lawfulness and appropriateness and, therefore, can substantially secure proof rights. If we introduce a relevancy concept separate from our concept of the admissibility of evidence, we can clarify the basis of this concept of admissibility of evidence as well as integrally understanding the regulations on the exclusion and admissibility of evidence that cannot be explained only with the admissibility of evidence and credibility. Thus we can attain logical reasoning in the law of evidence.

증거의 진정성과 증거규정 체계의 재구성 - 미국연방증거규칙으로부터의 시사점 -

김일룡(Kim Il-Ryong) 대검찰청 2011 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.32

미국연방증거규칙 제901조는 증거의 진정성, 즉 제출된 증거가 증거제출자가 주장하는 바로 그 증거라는 사실을 증명하는 방법을 열거하고 있고, 제902조는 별도로 진정성을 증명하지 않아도 되는 증거의 유형을 제시하고 있다. 증거에 진정성이 확인된 후에야 비로소 관련성(relevancy)이 있는지 여부 및 전문법칙에 해당하는지 여부를 순차적으로 판단한다는 점에서 증거의 진정성은 증거능력 인정의 기본적 토대가 되어 있다. 이에 비하여 우리 형사소송법에는 제312조 내지 313조에서 전문증거의 증거능력 인정요건으로 ‘성립의 진정’ 및 ‘적법한 절차와 방식에 따라 작성된 것’또는 ‘작성자 또는 진술자의 자필이거나 서명 또는 날인’이라는 용어를, 제318조 제1항은 동의한 증거의 허용요건으로서 ‘진정한 것으로 인정한 때’라는 용어를 사용하고 있을 뿐이다. 전문증거의 증거능력 인정요건으로서의 진정성립이나 동의한 증거의 허용요건으로서의 진정성은 증거의 진정성과 다른 의미라고 보는 것이 우리 학계에서의 다수의견이다. 그러나 형사소송법 제312조 내지 제313조의 경우에는 진술을 기재한 서면인 경우에 형식적 진정성립이 인정되어도 실질적 진정성립을 추정하지 아니하고, 나아가 서명날인의 진정에 더하여 문서작성의 일정한 절차의 준수와 적법성까지 요구하는 것은 증거의 진정성의 인정요건을 강화한 규정으로, 제318조 제1항은 일반적인 증거의 진정성을 의미하는 규정으로 이해할 필요가 있다. 왜냐하면 현대에 이르러 전자증거 등 새로운 유형의 증거에 대한 진정성을 폭넓게 다루기 위해서는 진정성에 대한 통일적 해석이 필요하기 때문이다. 나아가 증거법의 체계도 전문법칙에서 진정성 요건을 삭제하여 전문법칙 원래의 모습으로 되돌리고, 증거의 진정성 부분은 증거능력의 가장 기본적인 요건으로서 새롭게 대두되는 전자증거 등의 진정성 증명을 포함한 모든 서면(진술이 기재된 서면의 경우 현재와 같이 엄격한 요건을 규정하면 될 것이다)과 물건을 망라할 수 있도록 규정하되, 불필요한 진정성에 대한 이의를 막고 진정성 증명에 과도한 시간과 노력을 방지하기 위하여 FRE 제902조의 규정과 같이 공문서 또는 공적으로 인증된 문서로 제출되는 증거인 경우에는 별도의 진정성 증명 없이 증거로 사용할 수 있도록 하는 것이 합리적일 것이다. Provisions of Article 312 and Article 313 of the criminal procedures law use terms of ‘authenticity of constitution’ and ‘thing prepared according to legal procedures and methods’ or ‘preparer's or alleger's handwriting, signature or seal’ as admission requirements of admissibility of hearsay evidence, and paragraph 1 of Article 318 uses a term of ‘when admitted as authentic’, and it must be considered as authenticity of evidence. In other words, constitution of actual authenticity is not estimated even though constitution of formal authenticity is admitted in case of a letter describing representation for Article 312 and Article 313. Provisions require compliance and legality of the specified procedures of documentation in addition to authenticity of signature and seal must be interpreted as provisions to enhance the related requirements to obtain authenticity of evidence, and paragraph 1 of Article 318 must be interpreted to mean authenticity of evidence in general terms. A problem is that there is no provision regarding how to evidence authenticity of other evidence than a written document describing representation as well as evidence by electronic evidence or evidence by recording media. Thus, the criminal procedures law must be systemized to settle the problem through regulations regarding exclusion of illegally collected evidences (paragraph 2 of Article 318), regulations regarding discretion of confession or representation (Article 309, Article 317) and regulations regarding restriction of admissibility of sole confession (Article 310) to return the relevant provisions to the original preamble principle state after deleting authenticity requirements from the preamble principle, specify the authenticity part of evidence as future-oriented to contain all documents (strict requirements must be specified as it is now for a writing describing representation) and things including evidence of authenticity of electronic evidences, etc newly emerged as the most basic requirements of admissibility, and restrict admissibility of a document prepared by an inspection institute.

의료분쟁조정의 활성화를 위한 제언 : 한국의료분쟁조정중재원을 중심으로

김일룡(Kim, Il-Ryong) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2015 의생명과학과 법 Vol.14 No.-

For the purpose of vitalizing the medical dispute mediation and arbitration by Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency, it is important to expand human resources & physical facilities in addition to ensuring fairness of case processing and organizing the legal system. Since fairness of case processing is directly related to people's trust, it is necessary to appropriately adjust the percentages between patients and health & medical service personnel by constituents of the Agency in charge of related work. Based on this, it would be necessary to change the mind-set of blindly expecting advantageous outcome by patients regarding the court ruling as the Agency processes cases commissioned from court as much as possible. In addition, allowing Minister of Health and Welfare to directly become involved in every area of the Agency's affairs including its work, accounting & assets and human resources can invade the independence and autonomy of the Agency. There is also a possibility that the Agency will perform its work in a heteronomous manner by climbing on the bandwagon resulting from the government's policy change. It will then lead to a situation where the Agency will be limited in gaining people's trust as an objective and fair agency. Accordingly, it would be necessary to prepare articles of association of the Agency to ensure its operation and work to be performed continuously without wavering. In addition, Minister of Health and Welfare as competent authorities should just remain the role of supervising whether the Agency is being operated according to its articles of association. Lastly, it is necessary to organize the legal system to induce the participation in mediation and arbitration by health & medical service personnel. This will require efforts such as improving the system related to the procedure after requesting mediation and arbitration, as well as organizing the system of valuation authorities and improving the exceptional clause on criminal punishment. It would be also necessary to expand the Agency's facilities and human resources to allow people to easily and quickly use the Agency by establishing the Agency branches in major regions of the country.

의사의 설명의무에 대한 판례의 유형화와 그 검토 : 증명책임과 배상범위를 중심으로

김일룡(Kim, Il-Ryong) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2021 의생명과학과 법 Vol.26 No.-

의사의 설명의무는 조언설명의무와 지도설명의무로 나눌 수 있다. 판례는 지도설명의무에 대해서는 진료행위의 본질적 구성부분이므로 지도설명의무 위반과 상당인과관계가 있는 생명･신체상의 손해에 대하여 배상책임이 있다고 판시하고 있는데, 이에 대해서는 학설상으로도 이견이 없다. 이에 비하여 조언설명의무에 대해서는 이를 위반하여 손해배상책임이 인정되는 경우에 그 구조를 어떻게 파악할 것인가와 관련하여 학설은 물론 판례도 일관되어 있지 않다. 이 논문에서는 조언설명의무위반과 관련된 법원의 판결을 분석하여 설명의무의 구조에 대한 판례의 입장을 세 가지 유형으로 분류하고 그 내용을 고찰하였다. 이를 토대로 조언설명의무 이행에 대한 증명책임이 의사측에 있다는 대법원 판례가 원래의 증명책임을 확인한 것인지 아니면 증명책임을 전환하거나 완화한 것인지에 대한 문제를 다루고, 다음으로, 설명의무에 대한 법적구조의 유형에 따라 침해되는 법익을 달리한다는 점에 착안하여 조언설명의무위반으로 인한 손해배상의 범위를 원칙적으로 위자료에 한정하면서 예외적으로 전체손해의 배상을 인정하는 대법원 판례의 입장을 비판적으로 분석하였다. The doctor s duty to explain can be divided into the duty to explain advice and the duty to explain guidance. The precedent ruled that the duty to explain guidance is an essential component of the medical practice, so there is a liability for compensation for life and physical damage that is proximately related to the violation of the duty to explain guidance, and there is no disagreement in theory. However, not only theories but also precedents are inconsistent as to how to grasp the structure when there is a liability for damages in violation of the duty to explain advice. In this paper, the Supreme Court ruling related to the violation of the duty to explain advice was analyzed, and different positions on the structure of the duty to explain were classified into three types, and the contents were reviewed. Based on this, we first deal with the question of whether the Supreme Court precedent that the doctor is responsible for proving the fulfillment of the duty to explain advice confirmed the original burden of proof or changed or relaxed the burden of proof. next, Regarding the scope of compensation for damages due to violation of the duty to explain advice, we critically analyzed the position of the Supreme Court precedent that exceptionally recognizes compensation for all damages while limiting the scope of compensation for damages caused by violation of the duty to explain advice to alimony in principle. Through this, it is hoped that the doctor s duty to explain advice will gain an overall bird s eye on the position of precedents on the burden of proof and the scope of damages.

민사조정법상 진술의 원용제한 규정에 대한 미국법제에서의 시사점

김일룡(Kim Il-Ryong) 한국법학원 2011 저스티스 Vol.- No.123

조정절차에서 행해진 진술을 후속하는 소송절차에서 사용하지 못하도록 하는 조치는 조정제도의 근간이다. 미국에서는 1975년에 제정된 미국연방증거규칙(Federal Rules of Evidence) 제408조에서 이미 이와 관련된 규정을 두고 있고, 조정절차에서 행해진 진술의 비밀보호 규정은 2001년에 제정된 통일조정법(Uniform Mediation Act)에서도 핵심이다. 이러한 추세에 비추어 보면 우리나라 민사조정법 제23조에서 당사자 또는 이해관계인의 진술을 민사소송에서 원용하지 못하도록 규정한 것은 선진화된 입법이라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 수소법원 조정제도를 두고 있는 우리 민사조정법에 의하면 소송절차와 조정절차가 분리되지 아니함으로써 담당 판사뿐만 아니라 당사자들에게도 ‘역할 혼란’을 초래하고, 당사자에게는 판결을 담당할 수소법원의 조정 또는 조정을 갈음하는 결정에 대하여 이의를 하더라도 판결 선고 시 결론이 달라질 가능성이 거의 없을 뿐만 아니라 경우에 따라서는 오히려 불이익을 받을 수도 있다는 심리적 압박을 받아 불만족스러움에도 승복할 수밖에 없다는 점에서 문제가 있다. 이러한 상황이 초래되는 이유는 수소법원이 직접 조정하는 경우에는 조정절차에서의 진술이 소송사건 판단의 주체인 수소법원 판사에게 모두 공개되어 이를 지득하게 된다는 점 때문이다. 수소법원 조정제도는 조정성공률을 높이고 법원의 심리 부담을 덜 수 있다는 장점이 있을지는 몰라도 조정절차가 지향하는 만족스러운 윈-윈의 해결책과는 거리가 멀뿐만 아니라 진술의 원용제한 규정과의 통일적 해석을 방해한다. 따라서 법원은 수소법원 조정제도를 가급적 배제하고 민사소송법 개정으로 도입된 화해권고결정제도를 통하여 당사자 간의 화해를 이끌어 내거나 조정 시 당사자로 하여금 조정기관을 선택하게 하는 등의 방법으로 진술의 원용제한 규정의 실효성을 높임으로써 조정당사자나 이해관계인이 열린 마음으로 조정에 임하여 만족스러운 대화와 타협이 성사될 수 있도록 노력해야 할 것이다. 나아가 입법론으로는 민사조정법에 규정된 수소법원 조정제도를 삭제하고, 미국연방증거규칙 제408조나 통일 조정법의 비밀보호 관련 규정들을 참고하여 진술의 원용제한의 범위와 한계를 세부적으로 규정할 필요가 있다. The system for disallowing the statement made in mediation proceedings to be used in the subsequent lawsuit proceedings is the foundation of mediation system. Its related provision has already been made in the US through Article 408, Federal Rules of Evidence enacted in 1975. In addition, for the purpose of alleviating the inconsistency in the scope and limit of confidentiality enacted or formed through precedents at the federal & state level on mediation proceedings, Uniform Mediation Act was enacted for seeking its uniformity since the 1960s. In light of such trend, it can be said that the provision in our country of disallowing only the statement made by the party or any person interested in to be used in civil procedure, which is stipulated in Article 23, Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act, is an advanced legislation. Additionally, in the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act that includes a system for allowing the court of a suit to mediate by itself, there is the issue of causing 'confusion of role' not only for the judge in charge of the case in litigation but also for the parties by not separating the lawsuit proceedings and mediation proceedings. In addition, there is the issue for the party in having to submit to the completion of conciliation or the decision instead of conciliation made by the court of the suit in spite of being dissatisfied by such action upon receiving psychological pressure that such action is compulsory. The biggest reason for causing such situation in the case of the court of the suit directly mediating is from the fact that the judge of the court of the suit, who will be making the judgement on the lawsuit case, ends up learning about the statements made in the mediation proceedings as they are all disclosed to the judge. Although increasing the success rate of meditation is to be desired, using such method is far from the satisfying win-win settlement sought by the mediation proceedings. Furthermore, it interferes with the uniform interpretation among the stipulations in the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act even though it might alleviate the psychological burden of the court. Accordingly, the court must refrain as much as possible from using the court of a suit mediation system while striving to make its settlement through the Recommendation for Compromise by Ruling introduced in Civil Procedure Act or increasing the effectiveness of the 'not be used' provision of the statement by allowing the parties to choose the organ of conciliation so that the parties of the mediation or any person interested in can approach the mediation with open mind for satisfying discussion and compromise. Furthermore, there is a need to remove the court of a suit mediation system stipulated in the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act on the argument of legislation level as well as clearly and specifically define the scope and limit of the 'not be used' of statement by referencing Article 408, Federal Rules of Evidence or the related provisions in Uniform Mediation Act.

민사소송법상 과학적 증거의 허용성

김일룡(Kim Il-Ryong) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2011 江原法學 Vol.32 No.-

In the Korean civil law proceeding, whether to adopt the expert testimony as an evidence is based on the free discretion of evidence. If such attitude is maintained for the scientific evidence, its result would be depending on judge's free discretion of evidence to discriminate science from pseudo-science. If the judge who is outside of the field of science makes a wrong decision, the fair trial cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the issue of the admissibility of the scientific evidence should be evaluated in the same step to discern authentication and identification of the documents, and the documents without the reliability should be decided as inadmissible and prevented from the free discretion of evidence. In terms of the legislation, the regulation similar to the FRE 702 should be established. Also, the process for the scientific evidence has to be expanded to the statistics evidence based on mathematics and the electronic evidence that the forgery is relatively easy.

의료수준의 개념에 대한 판례의 비판적 고찰

김일룡(Kim Il Ryong) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2014 의생명과학과 법 Vol.11 No.-

Since it is only a repetition of a synonym of regarding medical care level and duty of care as the same, there is no usefulness and the scope of "medical care level" broadens endlessly. This can only be said as a concept that transmuted from the meaning of medical level in its beginning. In addition, using such term only for malpractice even though there is no similar concept for other negligent acts is not in agreement with the overall theory structure of fault liability. However, since the term "medical care level" is a concept that is already being used commonly in precedents, medical circles or legal circles, the reality is that it is not easy to substitute this with a different term. Considering such circumstance, the author's opinion is that it would be desirable to use medical level only as medical knowledge or medical level concept, while treating in parallel another grounds of doer's duty of care judgment such as medical environment & condition and special characteristics of medical practice and medical care level to comprehensively consider them to determine whether or not duty of care has been violated. In addition to understanding medical level by reducing it to "medical knowledge", the medical level of "medical practice" conducted by doer should be considered as the standard instead of the medical level of "doer" when deciding fault. In this sense, specific situation at the time of act becomes an object of deciding fault but it is also different from theory of objectivity in the sense that "sphere of social life to which doer belongs" is not an object of deciding fault. For example, if a doer drove a vehicle, the doer's act of driving would be enough to decide based on ordinary people working as drivers. Accordingly, if a doer's medical practice is something that can be performed only by specialist, it would be enough to decide medical care level based on the doer's medical practice itself considering specialists in general as it would not be necessary to consider the medical level of the doer.