합병증을 동반하지 않은 2형 당뇨병 환자에 대한 황련해독탕의 혈당 강하 효과에 대한 유효성과 안전성 : 체계적 문헌 고찰과 메타분석

백지수,신선미,신동국,조충식,Baek, Ji-soo,Shin, Seon-mi,Shin, Dong-guk,Cho, Chung-sik 대한한방내과학회 2021 大韓韓方內科學會誌 Vol.42 No.4

Objectives: The purpose of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of Hwangryunhaedok-tang for type 2 diabetes without complications by systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched the following up to March 31. 2021: PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, CiNii, KISS, KMBASE, OASIS, ScienceON. Data extraction and assessment of Cochrane's risk of bias (RoB) tool were performed by two independent authors, and if there was disagreement between two researchers, it was resolved through the intervention of a third researcher. Results: A total of seven trials are included in this systemic review. The treatment group (Hwangryunhaedok-tang plus conventional treatment) showed more statistically significant effects than did the control group (conventional treatment only) in fasting plasma glucose level, 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose level, glycated hemoglobin A1c, fasting insulin level, and HOMA-IR. There was no significant difference between the treatment group (Hwangryunhaedok-tang alone) and the control group (metformin alone). Conclusion: Hwangryunhaedok-tang might have efficacy and safety in controlling blood sugar level and improving insulin-resistance. However, the number of studies included in the meta-analysis was insufficient, and the Hwangryunhaedok-tang used in the included studies was not standardized. Also, the quality of the involved studies was generally low. Therefore, further studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of Hwangryunhaedok-tang treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

해상책임보험에서의 직접청구권과 제3자 권리법에 관한 연구 - 2010년 제3자 권리법이 국내 직접청구권 관련 문제에 미치는 영향을 중심으로 -

백지수 ( Baek Ji-soo ) 한국해법학회 2018 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.40 No.1

해상책임보험은 선박소유자가 제3자에게 부담하는 손해배상책임을 전보하는 보험이다. 우리 상법 제724조 제2항은 제3자의 보험자에 대한 직접청구권을 명문으로 규정하고 있으므로, 해상사고로 피해를 입은 제3자는 위 조항에 의거하여 선박소유자의 보험자를 상대로 직접청구권을 행사할 수 있다. 그런데 해상보험의 중심지인 영국의 영향력으로 인하여 국내 선박소유자가 영국법을 준거법으로 정한 약관을 사용하는 보험자와 해상책임보험계약을 체결하는 경우가 빈번하다. 우리 대법원 역시 영국법 준거약관의 효력을 인정하고 있는바, 제3자가 영국계 보험자를 상대로 국내 법원에 직접청구소송을 제기할 경우 법원은 영국법의 입장에서 직접 청구권에 관한 문제를 판단하게 된다. 영국에서는 1930년 제3자 권리법을 제정하여 제3자가 도산한 피보험자를 대신해서 그의 보험자에게 직접청구를 할 수 있는 법률상 근거를 마련하였다. 그러나 1930년 제3자 권리법은 직접청구권의 요건을 엄격하고 까다롭게 규정하고 있어 제3자의 효과적인 직접청구권의 행사를 저해한다는 비판을 받아왔다. 이에 영국 의회는 직접청구권의 행사요건을 완화하여 제3자의 신속하고 편리한 직접청구권의 행사를 도모할 목적으로 2016년 8월 1일부터 2010년 제3자 권리법을 개정·시행하였다. 본 논문에서는 2010년 제3자 권리법의 개정내용을 파악하여 향후 국내에서 제기되는 영국법을 준거법으로 하는 직접청구소송의 결과를 예측하고, 우리 상법과 2010년 제3자 권리법의 비교를 통하여 직접청구권에 관한 우리 상법 제724조의 개정 방향을 제안하기로 한다. The marine liability insurance covers shipowners’ compensation liability for the third parties. The third parties who are damaged from marine incidents could take a direct action against insurers by the section 724(2) of Korean Commercial Code which provides the third parties’ rights against insurers. Meanwhile being influenced by impact of England which is the center of marine insurance, there have been frequent cases that Korean shipowners have the marine liability contracts with the insurers who have a insurance policy clause governed by the English law. As the Supreme Court of Korea has recognized the validity of applicable law clauses being governed by the English law, in the case the third parties take a direct action proceeding against the British insurers, the Korean court would adjudicate the case under the English law. England had established a legal basis upon which the third parties could take a direct action against insurers instead of the insolvent insured by legislating the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. However, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 which stipulated requirements of direct action strictly, it was criticized for impeding third parties’ effective exercising of the rights for direct action. For this reason, the British Parliament enacted the revised law, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 on 1 August 2016, which designed to reduce requirements of direct action in order to provide third parties with immediate and convenient exercising of the rights. In this article, I will grasp the amendments of the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) 2010 and predict the results of direct action proceedings in domestic which are governed by the English law. Then, I will suggest the revision direction of the section 724 of Korean Commercial Code related to the direct action by comparing with the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) 2010.

합병증을 동반하지 않은 2형 당뇨병 환자에 대한 백호가인삼탕과 혈당강하제 병행치료의 혈당 강하 효과 및 안전성 연구 : 체계적 문헌 고찰과 메타분석

신재익,백지수,신선미,조충식,Shin, Jae-ik,Baek, Ji-soo,Shin, Seon-mi,Cho, Chung-sik 대한한방내과학회 2021 大韓韓方內科學會誌 Vol.42 No.4

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of Baekhogainsam-tang for type 2 diabetes without complications by systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: For a systematic review and meta-analysis, we set a key question in accordance with PICOT-SD. We searched the following up to March 31. 2021: PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, CiNii, KISS, KMBASE, OASIS, and ScienceON. A meta-analysis was conducted by synthesizing the results, including fasting plasma glucose level, postprandial 2-hour plasma glucose level, and Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c). Results: A total of five trials are included in this systemic review. The treatment group (Baekhogainsam-tang plus conventional treatment) showed more statistically significant effect than did the control group (conventional treatment only) in fasting plasma glucose level, postprandial 2-hour plasma glucose level, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Conclusions: Baekhogainsam-tang showed statistically significant effects in hypoglycemic effect and in improving insulin resistance. However, the number of studies included in the meta-analysis was insufficient, and the BIT used in the included studies was not standardized. This topic requires further attention and more clinical research.

종합물류계약과 복합운송의 구별 - 대법원 2019. 7. 10. 선고 2019다213009 판결 -

김인현 ( Kim In-hyeon ),백지수 ( Baek Ji-soo ) 한국상사판례학회 2020 상사판례연구 Vol.33 No.1

원고는 피고들과 종합물류계약을 체결하였다. 피고들이 물류계약을 제대로 이행하지 아니하자, 원고는 대체운송계약 체결에 따른 손해를 입었다. 원고는 피고들에게 손해배상청구 소송을 제기하였는데, 이 사건 계약에 대하여 어떤 법률을 적용하여야 하는지가 문제 되었다. 대법원은 상법 제816조 제2항을 적용하여 이 사건 원고의 손해발생 구간을 특정할 수 없다고 보아, 피고 1에 대해서는 해상운송법을, 피고 2에 대해서는 육상운송법을 각각 적용하였다. 해상운송법은 1년의 단기 제척기간이 적용되었지만, 육상운송은 1년의 소멸시효였다. 원고의 청구는 제품이 인도되었어야 할 날로부터 2년이 경과한 시점에 제기되었다. 대법원은 피고 1에 대한 원고의 청구를 기각하였다. 반면, 피고 2의 경우 피고가 소멸시효 완성의 항변을 하지 않았다고 보아 원고의 청구를 인정하였다. 필자는 종합물류계약이 복합운송과 다른 점을 지적하고 있다. 대법원은 종합물류계약의 핵심요소를 복합운송으로 보아 상법 제816조가 적용된다고 보았다. 그렇지만 필자는 종합물류계약이 복합운송보다 넓은 개념인 점을 지적하고 있다. 종합물류계약을 규율하는 특별한 규정이 없기 때문에 상법 제816조를 적용하는 점에 대해서는 찬성을 하면서도, 종합물류계약에 적용될 특별한 규정을 두어야 한다고 보았다. 종합물류계약을 복합운송과는 다른 것으로 본다면, 상법상 상행위규정의 소멸시효인 5년이 적용될 여지도 있음을 지적하고 있다. The plaintiff and defendant entered into logistics contract. When the defendants did not carry out the logistics contract, the plaintiff suffered damages caused by not performing the contract and raised law suit. The defendant argued that the law suit should be rejected because it was not raised within limitation period. The supreme court applied KCC Article 816(2) to the case. Regarding the defendant 2, it applied the land law while it applied the maritime law to defendant 1. The legal nature in the time bar applicable to the land law is a prescription period. That in the maritime law is a limitation period. The law suit was raised after 2 years when the delivery of the cargo should be done. Time bar period is one year from the delivery date. The defendant 2 did make any defense to the plaintiff on the prescription period. Therefore, the court decided that the defendant 2 should have paid the damages to the plaintiff. The authors argue that the damages done by the defendant may be out of scope of Art. 816 because it is applied only when the cargo was damaged during the carrier's transportation. But, the damages in the case was brought due to defendant's not carrying out the contract. If that is the case, the time bar period is 5 years. And, the defendants should pay full damages because the law suit was raised within the time bar period.