교회공동체의 법 이해와 준수

고세일 기독교학문연구회 2023 신앙과 학문 Vol.28 No.1

When we think of laws in social communities, we may consider them as burdens to “do or not do.” Also, we might think of our social reality: “the rich are innocent, the poor are guilty.” This reality concerning laws might influence brothers’ and sisters’ perspectives of laws in church communities as well. However, ironically many laws in pre-modern and modern societies have come from Bible, the Word of God. If we look at laws in the Bible, there are law about the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that God spoke to Adam and Eve, the Ten Commandments, and laws of God which God gave Israelites after God had saved them from Egypt in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, there are scenes in which Jesus criticizes the Pharisees concerning laws of God. In addition, the Apostle Paul provides two different views of laws of God. The present negative perspective of laws of God in church communities might be influenced by the Reformers or by misunderstanding their ideas. However, their slogan “by Faith alone,” is not contracting to laws of God. The contrasting opinions of laws and grace of God may come from misunderstanding of the entire Scriptures, especially the relationship between the Old and the New Testament. We can interpret laws and gospel of God with harmony. Particularly moral law of God can provide norms of practice in church communities. When we interpret laws of God in this way, we can restore the heart of the early churches in Acts 2:43-47. Also we can see and check laws of our world with laws of God. 사회공동체에 있는 사람이 ‘법’이라는 단어를 떠올리면, 보통 ‘유전무죄 무전유죄’라는 사회현실과 무언가를 하거나 하지 않아야 하는 부담으로 여긴다. 그러면 교회 공동체에 있는 그리스도인이 ‘법’ 을 좋지 않은 대상으로 바라보는지, 아니면 좋은 대상으로 바라보는지를 묻는다면, 그 대답은 사회 공동체에 있는 사람의 대답과 다르지 않을 것 같다. 현재 거의 모든 민법 교과서의 저자들은 권리주체로서 ‘비법인사단’을 설명하면서, ‘교회의 분열’에 대한 많은 법원의 판례를 소개한다. 이런 교회공동체의 판례 사안을 법의 눈으로 바라보면, 교회공동체는 법을 잘 지키는 공동체가 아니라고 여길 가능성이 있다. 이러한 문제는 교회 공동체가 하나님의 법에 대한 오해에서 나올 수 있다. 이런 측면에서 이 글은 이러한 문제가 어디에서 나오고 어떻게 해결할 수 있는지를 설명한다. 현대 사회의 많은 법은 근대 사회를 표본으로 한 것이고, 표본의 근간을 합리성에 둔다. 그런데 현재 쓰고 있는 여러 법 제도는 성경의 법에 근거를 둔다. 현대의 법이 하나님의 말씀인 성경에 근거한 것이다. 성경에서 법의 관점을 본다면, 구약성경에서 하나님이 아담과 하와에게 말씀하신 선과 악을 알게 하는 나무의 열매에 대한 법, 이스라엘 민족을 이집트에서 구해 내시고 주신 십계명과 모세를 통해서 주신 하나님의 법이 있다. 신약성경에서는 예수님이 바리새인들을 비판하시는 장면이 있고, 사도 바울이 하나님의 법을 바라보는 두 개의 시각을 제시한다. 교회 공동체에서 하나님의 법을 좋지 않게 보는 시각은 종교개혁자들의 영향 또는 종교개혁자들이 사고를 오해한 것에서 나왔다. 그러나 “오직 믿음으로”이라는 종교개혁의 구호도 하나님의 법과 대치되는 사고가 아니다. 하나님의 법과 은혜를 반대로 보는 시각은 성경 전체의 흐름을 놓치는 위험에 빠진다. 하나님의 법과 복음을 조화롭게 해석할 수 있다. 특히 법의 3중 구분에 따른 ‘도덕법’은 하나님의 성품에 관한 법으로서 우리에게 실천의 문제를 풀어나갈 수 있는 말씀이다. 이렇게 해석할 때, 사도행전 2:43-47의 초대 교회의 마음을 회복할 수 있다고 판단한다. 교회 공동체에서 하나님의 법을 올바로 바라보고, 삶의 실천으로 나아갈 때, 세상에 있는 여러 법도 하나님의 법의 시각으로 점검할 수 있다. 그렇게 나와 하나님, 나와 이웃, 나와 세상을 연결하고 주님이 부르신 그곳에서 예수 그리스도를 증거하는 삶을 살아가는 실천의 힘을 얻는다. 따라서 교회 공동체에서 하나님의 성품인 도덕법을 이해하고 삶에 있어서 중요한 실천 덕목의 방향으로 삼을 때 하나님의 법의 관점에서 세상의 법을 확인할 수 있는 힘을 갖는다. 이렇게 하나님의 법을 이해하고 세상을 섬길 때, 여러 민법 교과서에 있는 비법인사단인 교회 분열 문제도 해소할 수 있다.

운동경기에 참가하는 사람의 주의의무에 대한 고찰 : - 미국 법원의 운동경기에 참여한 사람의 주의의무 판단을 중심으로 -

고세일 忠南大學校 法學硏究所 2021 法學硏究 Vol.32 No.2

When participating in athletic games, there have been risks in which participants may be injured by activities of other participants. If normal injuries have occurred, the player may consider that he or she should bear his or her injuries. However, if severe injures have come in the course of sports activities, the circumstances would be different. The sports player would not willingly take his or her injures, if the harms have been beyond its ordinary expectation. Several media have reported the Supreme Court’s decision sentenced on January 31, 2019, 2017 Da203596, and the Korean public have paid attention to the Court’s ruling. The first trial and the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant was not responsible for the goalkeeper’s injuries. On the other hand, the second trial court ruled in favor of some of the injured soccer player. In this article, this author has examined the duty of care of those who have participated in sports games. This article was made up of all five. In II., this author has summarized the facts and court’s judgments and their legal grounds. In III., this author has sought to find “safety care duty,” in structure of obligations and to categorize the Korean Supreme Courts’ cases concerning the safety care duty. In IV., this author has studied US courts cases which have occurred in sports and recreation games for a comparative legal viewpoint of duty of care. In V., this author has summarized and attempt to provide directions for which we may need to look for. 운동경기에 참여할 때 크고 작은 부상의 위험이 있다. 작은 부상인 경우에는 놀다가 다친 것으로 여길 수 있다. 그렇기 때문에 참가자가 스스로 그 부담을 져야 한다는 인식이 있다. 그런데 운동경기에 참여하여, 예상하지 못한 큰 부상을 입을 때 상황이 달라진다. 참가자가 그런 큰 부상을 일으킨 상대방 참가자에게 손해배상책임을 묻고자 한다. 여러 언론이 대상 판결인 대법원 2019. 1. 31. 선고 2017다203596 판결을 보도했고, 일반인도 이 사안에 큰 관심을 가졌다. 1심과 대법원은 피고에게 책임이 없다는 점에서 결론을 같이 했다. 반면에 2심인 고등법원은 원고 일부 승소 판결을 내렸다. 이 글에서는 대상 판결을 중심으로 운동경기에 참가하는 사람의 주의의무를 살펴본다. 이 글은 모두 다섯 부분으로 이루어졌다. II.에서는 대상판결의 사실관계와 법원의 판단 내용을 살핀다. III.에서는 대상 판결이 운동경기에 참가하는 사람의 주의의무의 주된 논거로 삼는 ‘안전배려의무’의 뜻과 안전배려의무에 대한 여러 유형의 대법원 판례를 검토한다. IV.에서는 운동경기에 참여한 사람의 주의의무를 검토하기 위해서 운동경기에서 발생한 사안이 많은 미국 판례 내용을 고찰한다. V.에는 지금까지 내용을 정리하고, 시사점을 제시한다.

미국 불법행위법의 구조와 내용에 대한 연구 - 보통법전집의 ‘과실’을 중심으로 -

고세일 한국민사법학회 2012 民事法學 Vol.59 No.-

In United States, there have been various sources of laws including positive laws. Further there have been various Restatements in which many members of American Law Institute have discussed and drafted. Although the Restatements may not be positive laws, they have worked similar functions as positive laws have done. Most of US law schools have used the Restatements as one of most important materials for their students’ education, and US courts have cited many provisions of the Restatements to make decisions in various civil cases. In this regard, this author has estimated that the Restatements would be a good guide to understand American law: structure and contents. Therefore this author has chosen the Restatements of Torts (Second) to show the foundation of current American Tort law, while focusing negligence as a founding part of American Tort law. In this aspect, this author attempts to explain principal provisions of negligence in US Restatements of Torts: mainly sections 281 through 328D. In II of this article, this author mentions history of american torts law prior to 19th century, and then explains history of the Restatement of Torts which was at birth in 20th. In III, this author refers to a general concept of negligence in the Restatements of Torts, while stating definition, requirements, criteria of negligence and standards of actor’s behaviors. In IV, this author explains various of negligent acts in the Restatements of Torts. Thus this author describes dangerous acts, danger of harms, and use of incomplete instruments, misrepresentations of physical harm, dangerous emotional distress, duties of affirmative action. In addition, this author explains burden of proof concerning negligent actions. In V, this author summarizes the contents of negligence provisions of the Restatements of Torts. Finally this author attempts to suggest what Korean Tort law, which has Civil Law tradition may be able to learn from the negligence provisions of the Restatement of Torts, which has Common Law tradition.

미국 불법행위법상 동산 제공자의 책임 -불법행위 보통법전집의 과실 규정을 중심으로-

고세일 한국민사법학회 2012 民事法學 Vol.61 No.-

-Although the Restatements of Torts may not be American positive law,the Restatement is a good guide to understand American Tort law. In this regard, this author has examined chapter 14, liability of persons supplying chattels for the use of others, in the Restatements of (Second) Torts in this article. This Restatement chapter has 7 topics: rules applicable to all suppliers; persons supplying chattels to be used for their business purposes; manufacturers of chattels; sellers of chattels manufactured by third persons; strict liability; independent contractors; donors, lenders, and lessors of chattels. While having studied the sections 388 through 408 of the Restatement of (Second) Torts, this author has found its relation with general principles of chapter 12 in the Restatement of Torts and its independent functions, in which American Tort Law has evolved, with American Contact Law. In the meantime, this author may be able to look at a big picture of negligence in American Tort Law. This author has realized that the rules of liability of persons supplying chattels for the use of others also have provided basis rules of modern product strict liability, such as sections 402A and 402B. In addition, while liability rules of chattels suppliers have worked to cure harms and injuries occurred by torts in this area, its core provision is the section 388. Thus other sections (389 through 408) have been slight variation rules from the section 388. The rules and discussions in sections 388 through 408 in the Restatement of (Second) Torts may be similar to ‘warranty liability of sale contract’ in the Korean Civil Code, ‘positive contract violation,’ which Korean courts have mentioned, and ‘Korean Product Liability Act.’ The American Tort rules of chattels suppliers’ liability also have different aspects comparing to such Korean warranty liability of sale contract,positive contract violation and current Korean Product Liability Act. In this regard, this author explains these similarities and differences between both countries’ rules. Finally this author attempts to suggest what the sections 388 through 408 of the Restatement of (Second) Torts may work for Korean Tort Law.

미국법상 위험부담 법리

고세일 한국재산법학회 2015 한국재산법학회 학술대회 자료집 Vol.2015 No.4

아편유사제의 안전한 사용

고세일,원영웅,강정훈 대한의사협회 2022 대한의사협회지 Vol.65 No.1

Background: Opioids are effective analgesics for cancer pain and refractory non-cancer pain. Although they are essential medication, problematic issues on aberrant behavior and adverse events have rapidly emerged as social problems in Korea. This study aimed to describe the mechanisms, efficacy, and adverse events, especially how to deal with opioid dependency. Current Concepts: Opioid-induced aberrant behavior includes physical and psychological dependences (addiction), abuse, and diversion (giving prescribed opioids to another person). Most physicians are unfamiliar with how to handle patients presenting these problematic issues. Physical and psychological dependences develop through different pathophysiologic mechanisms, i.e., noradrenergic and dopaminergic pathways, respectively. Motivational enhancement therapy, psychosocial support, substitution therapy with buprenorphine, and adjunctive medications, including alpha-2 adrenergic agonist, antidepressants, and non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs, are the mainstay of treatment for opioid dependency. Constipation, nausea/vomiting, drowsiness/sedation, delirium, itching sensation, voiding difficulty, dry mouth, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, and respiratory depression are well-known physical side effects of opioid consumption. Discussion and Conclusion: Research on the development history, epidemiology of opioid dependency, and its treatment are warranted to avoid an opioid crisis in Korea. Above all, thorough knowledge for physicians and patients is urgently needed.

정보화 시대 미국 근로자들의 사생활 보호

고세일 한국노동연구원 2005 국제노동브리프 Vol.3 No.11

Is There a Role for Adjuvant Therapy in R0 Resected Gallbladder Cancer?: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

고세일,김영생,황인규,김은영,오성용,지준호,송하나,박세훈,박준오,강정훈 대한암학회 2016 Cancer Research and Treatment Vol.48 No.4

Purpose The purpose of this study is to assess the role of adjuvant therapy in stage I-III gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients who have undergone R0 resection. Materials and Methods Clinical data were collected on 441 consecutive patients who underwent R0 resection for stage I-III GBC. Eligible patients were classified into adjuvant therapy and surveillance only groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) between the two groups was performed, adjusting clinical factors. Results In total, 84 and 279 patients treated with adjuvant therapy and followed up with surveillance only, respectively, were included in the analysis. Before PSM, the 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate was lower in the adjuvant therapy group than in the surveillance only group (50.8% vs. 74.8%, p < 0.001), although there was no statistically significant difference in the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (66.2% vs. 79.5%, p=0.089). After the PSM, baseline characteristics became comparable and there were no differences in the 5-year RFS (50.8% vs. 64.8%, p=0.319) and OS (66.2% vs. 70.4%, p=0.703) rates between the two groups. Conclusion The results suggest that fluoropyrimidine-based adjuvant therapy is not indicated in stage I-III GBC patients who have undergone R0 resection.

불법행위의 예견가능성과 손해배상범위에 대한 연구 – 민법 제763조의 준용에 따른 민법 제393조의 해석문제 –

고세일 한국민사법학회 2014 民事法學 Vol.66 No.-

Historically the current Korean Civil Code has been succeeded by European Civil Codes, especially the German and French Civil Code through Japan. In aspect of non-performance and torts liability, Korea has imported general provisions, articles 390 and 750 of the Korean Civil Code from the French Civil Code. In the meanwhile the drafters had not enough time to make the Korean Civil Code, due to historical incidents. Therefore, there have been new provisions in the present Korean Civil Code for which interpretations have been difficult, because they had not been in the earlier Korean Civil Code. One of these tricky provision is article 763 of the Korean Civil Code, by which the article 393 (Scope of Damages in Non-performance) may be applicable by mutatis mutandis to tort claims. In this regard, drafters of the Korean Civil Code had attempted to treat the scope of tort damages as same as that of breach of contracts. However the provision which has treated scope of tort damages as same as that of non-performance, like the article 763 has hardly found in any other comparative laws. Therefore there have been controversies such as pros and cons of the current article 763. In this aspect, this author attempts to examine where the article 763 of the Korean Civil Code had come from in legal historical and comparative perspectives. This article has mainly six parts. In II, this author attempts to look into comparative examples of article 763 of the Korean Civil Code, and then explains the historical origin of the controversial provision. In III, this author studies English Hadley v. Baxendale, which has influenced the foreseeability rule in breach of contract world-widely. In IV, this author examines American Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, which may be a historical starting point for the foreseeability rule of torts. In V. this author reviews provisions of foreseeability rules in American Restatements (Second and Third) of Torts. In VI, this author examines foreseeability rule of Principles of European Tort Law and Non-Contractual Liability Arising out of Damage Cause to Another in European perspective. Finally while summarizing foreseeability rules of Hadley, Palsgraf, American Torts Restatements, and European discussions, this author attempts to mention why mutatis mutandis of article 393 in article 763 of the Korean Civil Code may be abrogated and a new provision for scope of torts damages may be necessary.

책임주체로서 지능형 인공지능 로봇에 대한 고찰

고세일 한국재산법학회 2020 재산법연구 Vol.37 No.2

As the word of 4th Industrial Revolution has been widely used to indicate the newest revolution all over the world, it has given the impression that artificial intelligence and robots based on artificial intelligence have been involved in every aspect of all human life. In March 2016, Alphago won all but the fourth Go game over Lee Sedol, professional Go player. The stunning event has put many people’s minds that artificial intelligence has proclaimed that the Google’s Deep Mind had developed intelligent machine’s victory over all humanity. While Artificial intelligence may give us rosy outlook for our future lives, and we also talk a lot about the difficult reality in which the A.I. and A.I. robots would taking people’s jobs sooner or later. At this point, not only the general public, but also lawyers have looked at the areas where the Artificial Intelligence and its A.I. robots may be working with longing and fear at the same time. What would be Artificial Intelligence to us? How should we accept these A.I. and A.I. robots? However, the starting point for these questions may depend on how we view artificial intelligence, and the answer to what social, economic, and legal status could be given to artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence robots. This article consists of five parts. In II., this author has looked at the concepts and status of AI robots. In III., this author has examined the positive and negative legal status discussions of artificial intelligence robots. However, these discussions may vary relying on the levels of technology of artificial intelligence, and its robots. While considering the current technology level, only abstraction discussion may be possible. In this regard, this author has looked at (1) algorithms, (2) autonomous cars, and (3) killer robots as more realistic subjects in IV. And, if there may be a difference between a person and an artificial intelligence robot, the issue that could be considered is (4) different decisions between a person and a A.I. robot with conflict of interests. In V., this author has summarized the discussions so far, and attempted to present a direction on how to consider artificial intelligence robots from today’s point of view. 전 세계에서 4차 산업혁명이라는 단어를 폭발적으로 쓰기 시작하면서, 그 중심에는 인공지능로봇이 인간의 모든 삶에 관여하는 것 같은 인상이 있다. 2016년 3월 이세돌 9단에 대한 알파고의 승리는 많은 사람의 마음속에 인공지능이 모든 인류에 대한 승리를 선포한 인상을 심었다. 인공지능이 앞으로 우리의 미래 삶에 대한 장밋빛 전망을 내놓기도 하고, 인공지능이 많은 사람의 일자리를 빼앗는 현실의 어려움에 대한 이야기를 많이 한다. 어느 순간 일반인뿐만 아니라 법조인들도 인공지능이 자신이 일하는 영역에 대해서 동경과 두려움을 동시에 갖고 바라본다. ‘인공지능’(Artificial Intelligence)은 우리에게 무엇일까? 우리는 이러한 인공지능과 인공지능에 바탕을 둔 로봇을 어떻게 받아들여야 할까? 그런데 이에 대한 출발점은 우리가 인공지능을 어떻게 바라보는지에 따라서, 인공지능과 인공지능 로봇에게 어떤 사회·경제·법의 지위를 줄 수 있는지에 대한 답이 달라진다. 이 글은 모두 다섯 개의 부분으로 이루어진다. II.에서 먼저 인공지능에 바탕을 둔 ‘지능형 인공지능 로봇’의 개념과 현황을 살핀다. III.에서 지능형 인공지능 로봇에 대한 법적 지위를 논하여, 긍정하는 입장과 부정하는 입장을 살펴본다. 그런데 이러한 논의가 지능형 인공지능의 기술 수준에 따라서 달라지는데, 현재의 기술 수준을 고려할 때 추상적인 담론으로 머물 가능성이 있다. 그런 측면에서 IV.에서 좀 더 현실적인 주제로, (1) 알고리즘, (2) 자율주행 자동차, (3) 킬러로봇을 살핀다. 그리고 사람과 지능형 인공지능 로봇 사이의 의사가 다른 경우에, 고려할 수 있는 문제로 (4) ‘의사의 불일치와 이해상반 문제’를 다룬다. V.에서는 지금까지 논의한 내용을 정리하고, 오늘의 시점에서 지능형 인공지능을 어떻게 바라보아야 하는지에 대한 방향성을 제시하고자 한다.