원치 않은 임신에 대한 아이의 부

봉영준 대한의료법학회 2011 의료법학 Vol.12 No.2

“Wrongful conception” is a medical malpractice claim in which the plaintiff is the parent of a normal, healthy infant whose conception was unplanned and unwanted. Medical malpractice in wrongful conception can be the result of a failure to provide informed consent to a patient, failure to properly perform a surgery, or a physician's negligent handling of a patient's problems. In the concrete, wrongful conception cases fall into two categories; those involving pre-conception negligence, such as a failed contraceptive, sterilization or failing of the controlling of embryo-number on the IVF, and those involving post-conception negligence, such as a failure to diagnose a pregnancy or to perform an abortion procedure. In addition, Medical malpractice can be the result of a failure to provide informed consent to a patient. When bad results occur by medical malpractice or failure to provide informed consent to a patient, the range of recovery of damages is decided by a traditional civil liability law. However the calculation of damages for wrongful conception is not easy because the high value of life is included in that case. So many courts opinions in foreign country and Seoul High Court decision in 1996 allow damages for the pregnancy, birthing process and sterilization costs, but refuses to allow damages for child rearing expenses. As to the range of recovery of damages for wrongful conception, one approach says that to allow damages in a suit such as this would mean that the physician would have to pay for the fun, joy and affection which plaintiff will have in the rearing and educating of the plaintiff's baby. To allow such damages would be against the dignity of the baby based on article 10 of the Constitution. However another approach says that damages are recoverable for all expenses related to child birth as well as for child rearing costs. Because the damages that the parents should bear a burden to the tort damage done is not a baby itself but child rearing costs. In other words, although the baby is healthy or not, economic burden of the parents can not be disregard. And denial of compensation for costs of child rearing may invalidate the role of liability law, grant the physician with a exemption certificate of liability. As a result, the medical field of procreation can be easily isolated from a liability of reparation. Therefore, on the liability law like the other medical malpractice action, parents who became pregnant or gave a birth by physician, wrongfully performed sterilization operation, etc. should be compensated for all damages relevant to unplanned and unwanted conception or birth as well as costs of child rearing.

경구피임약 포장결함에 의한 손해배상

봉영준 한국소비자학회 2015 한국소비자학회 학술대회 Vol.2015 No.4

법정손해배상의 법적 성질

봉영준 한국재산법학회 2016 한국재산법학회 학술대회 자료집 Vol.2016 No.2

의료계약상 채무불이행과 위자료

봉영준 대한의료법학회 2013 의료법학 Vol.14 No.2

In connection to the civil liability of the medical malpractice, plaintiff and courts are solving the medical disputes with theory of the liability based on tort law. because contract law does not enact the right of claim of solatium and a plaintiff’s lawyer and courts hesitate to use contract law. Medical treatment of doctor is main debt in medical contract and its incomplete performance gives rise to the violations of human’s life, body and health. Consequently a breach of medical contract leads to violations of personal rights. These violations spring from liability of contract as well as tort and damages from them are recognized based on medical contract law. A duty of explanation of doctor is a independent and appendant debt to the treatment debt. However its breach provokes violations of human’s life, body and health as well as a right self-determination. Therefore consolation money claim should be recognized. In case of the violation of patient’s life, body and health, patient’s family also can demand consolation money due to the violation of their’s own mental pain. However in case of the violation of only patient’s self-determination without informed concent, they can not demand it by reason of the violation of patient’s self-determination. But by reason of the violation of patient’s life, body and health that were recognized by proximate causal relation between violation of duty of explanation and abd execution, they can do.

허위·조작보도에 대한 징벌적 손해배상

봉영준 한양법학회 2023 漢陽法學 Vol.34 No.3

In the U.S.A, punitive damages are awarded in the case of malicious tort by the defendant for defamation. However, if the plaintiff is a public figure, not only malice but also at least “actual malice” is required to claim damages, whether compensatory or punitive. On the other hand, if the plaintiff is a private person, a claim for compensatory damages can be claimed if the defendant's malice or negligence is proved, and punitive damages can be claimed if there is malice or “actual malice.” On the other hand, a plaintiff who is a private person can claim compensatory damages if he/she proves the defendant’s malice or negligence, and can claim punitive damages if he/she proves the defendant’s malice or “actual malice.” In other words, even in the United States, which can be said to be the heaven of the press, punitive damages are recognized in cases of malicious defamation. In addition, punitive damages are recognized even if the plaintiff is a public figure, a public figure, or the matter is a public concern. In Korea, the amendment bill to the 「Act On Press Arbitration And Remedies For Damage Caused By Press Reports」 intends to introduce a five-times compensation system for actual damages in cases of defamation due to false or manipulated reports with clear “malice or gross negligence.” Many papers and news outlets oppose the introduction of the 5-times compensation system, saying that introducing the 5-fold compensation system violates the principle of excessive prohibition. However, I do not think that the introduction of punitive damages is contrary to the principle of excessive prohibition. Rather, it is wrong to stipulate that there is no liability for punitive damages even if false or manipulated reports are made with clear "malice or gross negligence" for public figures or public matters within a certain range. It goes against the concept of justice to insist on the freedom of speech even when the press, which has lost self-control, commits repeated and malicious defamatory acts. Although there are currently several relief systems for defamatory media reports, there is a need to strengthen civil penalties for malicious false and fabricated reports and to prevent such wrongful acts. Therefore, just as the punitive damages system has already been introduced in 20 Acts, the 「Act On Press Arbitration And Remedies For Damage Caused By Press Reports」 should also introduce it.

영국에서의 명예훼손과 징벌적 손해배상

봉영준 한국법정책학회 2023 법과 정책연구 Vol.23 No.4

영국(잉글랜드와 웨일즈)은 2009년 “검시관 및 사법법”(Coroners and Justice Act)을 제정하여 명예훼손죄를 폐지하였고, 2013년 명예훼손법(Defamation Act)을 개정함으로써 언론의 자유를 보다 더 보호하는 방향으로 법률을 개정하였다. 또한 개정법은 원고가 자신이 “심각한 피해”(serious harm)를 입었거나 입을 가능성이 있다는 요건을 추가하여 원고가 자신이 심각한 피해를 입었음을 증명하게 하여 명예훼손의 성립을 이전보다 더 어렵게 하였다. 반면에 2013년 “범죄 및 법원법”(Crime and Courts Act)을 제정하여 명예훼손의 경우 징벌적 손해배상과 가중적 손해배상이 인정될 수 있는 규정을 두었다. 물론 영국에서는 보통법 시대에서부터 명예훼손에 대해서도 징벌적 손해배상을 인정하여 왔다(스코틀랜드는 징벌적 손해배상제도를 인정하지 않는다). 그리고 오래된 판례를 근거로 교과서, 영국법률위원회, 주석가들은 명예훼손은 징벌적 손해배상의 중요한 청구원인이라고 하고 있다. 그러나 최근 한 연구에서 영국에서의 징벌적 손해배상에 관하여 최초로 실증적 연구를 하였는데, 2000년부터 2015년까지 16년 동안 1심판결을 기준으로 명예훼손(및 개인정보 침해) 소송에서 8건의 징벌적 손해배상청구가 검색되었고, 단 한 건도 징벌적 손해배상이 인정되지 않았다. 이와 같은 이론과 현실의 차이는 과거에 많은 징벌적 손해배상액의 판결이 있었던 것을 언론의 홍보 등을 통해 징벌적 손해배상의 판결이 자주 있고 또한 많은 액수의 배상이 있을 것이라는 인식의 오류에 기인하는 것 같다. 또한 영국 법원은 가해자를 처벌하는 징벌적 손해배상의 방법보다는 피해자의 가중된 감정 손상에 대해 전보적 배상으로서 간헐적으로 가중적 손해배상을 인정하는 방법을 취하고 있는 것으로 보인다. 영국의 실무적인 상황과 우리나라 대법원에서 2017년 「불법행위 유형별 적정한 위자료 산정방안」을 통하여 명예훼손에 대한 위자료 산정기준을 5천만 원에서 2억 원까지 가중할 수 있도록 하였고, 초과가중도 가능하도록 한 점을 참작하여 「언론중재 및 피해구제 등에 관한 법률」에 피해자의 손해액의 5배를 넘지 않는 범위에서 손해배상액을 인정할지 여부에 대해 참고가 되었으면 한다. In England and Wales, by revising the Defamation Act in 2013, the act was revised to further protect the freedom of speech. The revised act added a requirement that the plaintiff suffered or was likely to suffer “serious harm”, making it more difficult to establish defamation by allowing the plaintiff to prove that he suffered serious damage. Meanwhile, since the era of common law, the U.K. has also recognized punitive damages for defamation. However, in recent years, empirical study has shown that it is not easy to find cases in which punitive damages are actually recognized. This seems to be due to the fact that when the damage of victim’s emotions increased, the aggravated damages is being compensated for the increased emotional damage of the victim. Such cases of defamation in the U.K. can also be a policy reference to whether to introduce a five-fold compensation system for malicious false or manipulated reports in Korea recently. Anyway, it seems necessary to improve the fact that the amount of compensation for defamation is too low in Korea.

모자보건법상 낙태가능결정기간 도입과 부양비 배상 - 우리나라 판례를 중심으로 -

봉영준 ( Young-jun Bong ) 한국법정책학회 2019 법과 정책연구 Vol.19 No.4

Except for the 96Na10449 decision, the decision of the Seoul High Court in 1996, no court decision has still examined and mentioned that the physician who committed a medical malpractice should be responsible for the child support expenses on the ‘wrongful conception case’ and ‘wrongful birth case’ in Korea. In addition, no court has mentioned that the approval of damages for the child support expenses violates the child’s human dignity. The court did not recognize the abortion right of the pregnant woman and found that the defendant did not infringe on the right to abortion, not revealing its position on the loss of support, because plaintiff did not request the loss of support and Down’s syndrome, microcephaly and cleft palate, and Williams syndrome do not fall under the legal abortion requirement under article 14 of the Mother and Child Health Act. However, in March 2019, with the decision of unconstitution on the abortion rule in the Criminal Act, the Constitutional Court issued and mentioned an amendment to the Mother and Child Health Act by referring to the abortion requirement in Article 14 of the Mother and Child Health Act. Therefore if the abortion determination period is introduced in the Mother and Child Health Act, new situation will arise on the field of ‘Unwanted Child Case’ like the era of the Roe v. Wade case in U.S.A. The Supreme Court will have to admit abortion rights in the wrongful conception case and the wrongful birth case and have an active stance on the loss of support.

미국에서의 의료과오상 손해배상제도의 개혁과 시사점

봉영준 ( Bong Young Jun ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2017 법학논총 Vol.34 No.2

미국에서의 의료사고는 1960년대에 들어서 의료소송이 급증하고 고액의 손해배상청구가 인정되면서 의사배상책임 보험료도 급격히 상승하게 되었다. 1960년대부터 1970년대에는 외과전문 보험료는 10배로, 그 밖의 의사 보험료는 5배로 상승 되어 이른바 의료사고 배상책임보험의 위기(Malpractice Insurance Crisis)시대라고 일컬어졌다. 이러한 현상은 계속되어 2002년에는 미국에서 가장 큰 보험회사 중의 하나인 St. Paul사가 의료과오에 대한 보험계약을 중단하였다. 또한 2001년과 2002년 사이에 의료과오 보험료는 23%가 증가하였으며, 일부 주에서는 전문적 직업에 대해 보험료가 100%이상 증가하였다. 2005년 이후에는 보험료가 완만하게 증가하거나 2008년에는 4% 감소하긴 하였어도, 이는 과거 급격한 증가에 따른 결과일 뿐이었다. 현재 주마다 차이가 있기는 하지만, 산부인과 의사나 신경외과 의사의 경우 1년에 20만달러 이상의 보험료를 내는 경우도 있다. 이 문제로 경제적 위협을 받게 된 의료서비스 제공자는 이러한 비용을 환자에게 전가하고 있고, 미국 사회는 심각한 의료비용의 증가의 문제에 직면하게 되었다. 이에 따라 주정부는 과거수 십년간 각기 다른 내용이긴 하지만 의료과오에 있어서 손해배상책임제한 규정을 담는 법률의 제정을 통해 이에 대처하게 되었다. 이러한 의료분쟁의 증가는 우리나라도 비슷한 상황이 된 적이 있었고, 한 때 2년 여간 손해보험사들이 의료배상책임보험의 판매를 중단한 적이 있었다. 2008년 5월 서울중앙지방법원의 언론전담부, 교통산재전담부, 의료전담부 담당법관회의로 일정 기준금액을 기존의 6천만 원에서 8천만 원으로 증액하기로 하였으며, 현재 실무에서는 대부분 8천만 원을 일정 기준금액으로 삼고 있다. 의사의 설명의무 위반을 근거로 하는 정신적 손해배상의 경우 보통은 2,000만원은 넘지 않지만 예외적으로 증액되는 경우라도 최대 3천만 원은 넘지 않는다. 본 연구의 데이터에 의하면 의료과오 소송에서 총 배상액은 평균 1억 원을 넘지 않고 있으며, 정신적 손해배상액은 평균 2천만 원 정도이다. 이러한 점을 보면 미국과 같은 소송천국의 정도에는 이르지 않고 있는 현실과 그 배상액도 미국처럼 심각하지 않는 우리나라 현실을 고려하면 아직까지는 손해배상액의 상한을 규정할 정도는 아니라고 본다. 다만 미국의 상황이 타산지석이 될 것이다. Medical malpractice reform, also known as tort reform, includes strategies to limit medical malpractice costs, decrease of insurance premium, deter medical errors and ensure that patients who are injured by medical negligence are fairly compensated. Tort reform has the potential to reduce health care expenditures by reducing the number of malpractice claims, the average size of malpractice awards, the insurance premium and tort liability system administrative costs. It also may lead to fewer instances of defensive medicine where physicians order tests and procedures not primarily to ensure the health of the patient but as a safeguard against possible medical malpractice liability. The most important, with the waning of the malpractice insurance crisis, the discourse about medical liability has shifted from controlling liability costs to enhancing patient safety and reducing waste in health care. It is still in the midst of controversy and tort reform, but it overcomes the health care crisis for this purpose. However, it is unreasonable to say that it is a health care crisis because of the increase of number of malpractice claims and the excessive amount of damages in Korea. Although there is a problem of depletion of the health insurance fund, the amount of damages due to medical malpractice is still not sufficient for the patient. In the current medical malpractice lawsuit, the amount of mental damages is only about 20 million won, and the total compensation amount is about 100 million won or less. It is necessary to be very cautious to consider the limitation of damages in Korea.

법정손해배상의 법적 성질

봉영준(Bong Young Jun) 한국재산법학회 2016 재산법연구 Vol.33 No.2

최근 우리나라에 (협의의)법정손해배상과 3배 배상규정이 도입 및 신설되었다. (협의의)법정손해배상의 용어를 사용하고 있는 것은 저작권법, 상표법, 정보통신망법, 신용보호법, 개인정보보호법 5개이며, 3배 배상을 규정하고 있는 것은 하도급법, 정보통신망법, 신용보호법, 개인정보보호법 4개이다. (광의의)법정손해배상이란 손해액을 법률의 규정으로 정한 것을 말하는데, 협의의 법정손해배상에 배액배상액을 포함하는 것을 말한다. (광의의)법정손해배상에는 배상액의 상한과 하한을 규정하는 방식과 침해물마다 1,000만원과 같이 특정법정배상의 방식, 그리고 실손해의 2배, 3배, 4배와 같은 법정배액배상의 방식이 있다. 이 중에서 3배 배상의 규정은 실손해의 3배까지 배상액을 인정하는 것이므로 그 법적 성질은 징벌적 성격이다. 반면에 상한규정을 두고 있는 5개의 법률 규정(협의의 법정손해배상규정)은 그 실손해의 입증곤란을 이유로 하고 과도한 배상액을 제한하기 위하여 규정된 것이므로 그 법적 성질은 전보적 손해배상이다. 다만 저작권법상 상한규정은 미국저작권법이 징벌적 성질로 보고 있다는 점, 영리를 목적으로 고의’의 경우 배상액의 증액을 인정하고 있다는 점, 실손해의 입증이 가능한 경우에도 법정손해배상을 인정할 수 있다는 규정 등으로 보아 징벌적 손해배상이라고 해석하여야 할 것이다. 만약 우리나라에 규정된 (광의의)법정손해배상의 그 법적 성질이 징벌적 손해배상이라면 민사소송법 제217조의 2의 외국재판의 승인이 인정될 수 있다. 결국 3배 배상제도를 인정하고 있는 하도급법과 개인정보관련 3개 법률은 당연히 외국재판의 승인이 인정될 것이고, 이는 개인정보보호관련 3개 법률상의 (협의의)법정손해배상이 전보적 성질이라도 해당 법률이 3배 배상제도를 규정하고 있기 때문에 외국재판의 승인이 인정될 것이다. 반면에 저작권법은 3배 배상제도를 규정하고 있지 않고 (협의의)법정손해배상만을 규정하고 있기는 하지만, 그 (협의의)법정손해배상의 성질은 해석상 징벌적 성질을 띄고 있으므로 외국재판의 승인을 인정하여야 할 것이다. Treble damages was first introduced to Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act in 2011. After that statutory damages has been enacted in Copyright Act and Trademark Act. In addition National Assembly enacted treble damages and statutory damages in the 3 laws in connection with personal information protection, Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., Personal Information Protection Act, Credit Information Use and Protection Act. Statutory damages has three types, the statutory damages of the type of the upper and lower limits, statutory multiple damages, specific statutory damages. Therefore statutory multiple damages like double treble damages etc. should not be excluded from statutory damages. Treble damages ruled in 4 acts are punitive in nature. But the statutory damages of the type of the upper and lower limits ruled are basically compensative in nature. The reason is that the statutory damages was enacted because it is difficult to prove actual damages. However the statutory damages in Copyright Act is punitive in nature, because of the statute of ‘intentionally infringing rights for profit’ and the recognition of statutory damages in lieu of the actual amount of damages etc. As to the effect of foreign judgment in Civil Procedure Act, whether the effect is accepted or not is based on the legal nature.

환경분쟁해결 수단으로서 징벌적 손해배상제도

봉영준(Bong, Young-Jun) 한양법학회 2014 漢陽法學 Vol.25 No.4

Environmental pollution accidents, for example chemical accident, explosion accident occurred one after another, which threaten public health and safety to daily increasing explosion of public anxiety. However an effective remedy system for the victim is insufficient. Company for the purpose of profitability in general, on the other hand, is generating environmental pollution purposely and constantly, in addition, for the reason that sanctions is so weak in case that revenue is higher than the penalty the vicious cycle of environmental infringement continues. Given the difficulty of restitution or long-term commitment from the pollution of the environment, it is more important to prevent contamination. Therefore, it is imperative to see the punitive damages provisions as a means of punishment and prevention of pollution of the environment. The punitive damages are necessary to achieve justice system more in environmental areas can not be solved by a rule of public law as shown above. Because punitive damages would be calculated, being considered significance and repetition of illegal act, necessity of prevention, punitive damages is very suitable system, having the function of proactive prevention as well as post-regulation means. Also punitive damages could serve as a source of pollution compensation fund. It is true that punitive damages are reluctant to be introduced for the reason of excess of damages and distinction civil law field from criminal law field which is Continental law system. However Considering the facts that three times of damages are introduced in “Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act” and that the precautionary principle is one of the environmental law principles, It is a very good means to use th punitive damages systems in environmental law field. To strengthen the liability for the increased risk of environmental damage is the better way to access the precautionary principle for environmental protection and social security in the time that the environmental damages are increasing due to the advanced industrial society.