본문 바로가기 주메뉴로 바로가기
All
TITLE Supreme Court Decision 2014Da230535 Decided February 15, 2017【Damages (Etc.)】 * First draft [full Text]
Summary
[1] In cases involving performance of medical procedures that are physically invasive such as surgery, whether patient consent or approval is necessary (affirmative) and matters that medical practitioners are mandated to explain when seeking to obtain patient consent or approval thereof; In the event a medical practitioner neglected the duty to explain and thus forestalled a patient from substantially exercising his/her right to self-determination, whether such act constitutes a tort (affirmative)
[2] Requirements to acknowledge surgical procedures, such as vasectomies and abortions, which were performed on patients with Hansen’s disease (commonly known as leprosy) by the medical staff at Sorokdo National Hospital, a government-run hospital specialized in the quarantine and treatment of Hansen’s disease patients, as a legitimate exercise of governmental authority; In cases where the government, while failing to satisfy the requirements, subjected Hansen’s disease patients to undergo either a vasectomy or an abortion, whether such act by the government constitutes a tort under civil law (affirmative)
[3] Where Party A and others who, as former Hansen’s disease patients, sought a claim against the State for compensation on the ground of having been subjected to undergo either a vasectomy or an abortion during the period when they were hospitalized at Sorokdo National Hospital, a government-run hospital specialized in the quarantine and treatment of Hansen’s disease patients, the case holding that the State is liable for compensation
[4] In cases where an obligor is not permitted to assert the expiration of the statute of limitations as it constitutes an abuse of rights transgressing the principle of good faith; Standard for determining whether an obligee exercised his/her right within a reasonable period from the moment when objective reasons ceased to exist and the scope of “reasonable period” in a claim for damages caused by tort
Prev 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19776, 19783 Decided February 15, 2017【Agreed Amount etc.; Damages (Etc.)】* First draft
Next Supreme Court Decision 2015Hu1690 Decided February 9, 2017【Invalidation of Registration (Trademark)】* First draft
219 Seocho-ro,Seocho-gu,Seoul 06590,Republic of Korea 02-3480-1100