학술논문
의료분쟁조정제도의 싱가포르협약 조정제도와의 정합성에 대한 검토 - 싱가포르 협약에 대한 대응과 소송・중재절차와의 체계 정합성을 포함하여
이용수 0
- 영문명
- 발행기관
- 한국민사소송법학회
- 저자명
- 함영주(Young Joo Ham)
- 간행물 정보
- 『민사소송』제29권 제1호, 477~510쪽, 전체 34쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2025.02.28
6,880원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

국문 초록
The mediation procedure of the Mediation Committee of the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency can be evaluated as having little systematic consistency with the mediation procedure of the Singapore Convention. That’s because the system has modeled after the Korea Civil Mediation Act, which is understood as the Court Mediation Act.
For this reason, the Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency does not define the concept of the mediation procedure on the mediation committee training program also, rather the program introduces Korea Supreme Court precedents. So the contents of the training program appears to similar to the case law training for judges (or those expected to be) in charge of medical dispute cases or lawyers (including law professors).
This could be understood as the identity of medical dispute mediation has based on the court mediation followed by the Civil Mediation Act, and it is understood as a procedure similar to a trial in court.
The Korea Medical Mediation and Arbitration Agency understand mediation as a quasi-judicial body, and the documents of mediation records has the same effect of court settlement and court judgment.
However, understanding the Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency as a quasi-court institute that conducts a judgment with the same procedure as a court decision, is the same as declaring that the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency is another court that conducts a trial without a sitting judge established in the executive branch (even if a sitting judge is dispatched to the agency, it is not a court judgment made sitting judge because the medical mediation and arbitration agency is an institution other than a court).
Some scholar says that there is no problem because it is in accordance with the Medical Dispute Mediation Act created by the Korean National Assembly, but it is questionable whether the National Assembly could create similar court by law is according to Korea constitutional law. The Korea Constitutional law provision in Article 27, Paragraph 1 says “All citizens shall have the right to a trial according to law by sitting judges established by the Constitution and law,” which does not refer to the mediation system of the Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency in general, the Article 27, Paragraph 1 refer to the Agency mediation each process conducted by 5 mediators of medical dispute mediation and mediators’ every mediation process must meet the provisions of the Constitution in each case. This is because, as long as it is the mediation of the Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency, it is not an abstract evaluation of the overall medical dispute mediation Agency procedure that complies with Article 27 of the Constitution regardless of how the each mediation processes are conducted, but rather in a specific evaluation of whether the progress of the each mediation cases of the Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency satisfies the procedural standards set forth in the Constitution. This is also the reason why, in almost all countries except Japan, the evaluation of the mediation process is focuses on the evaluation of the individual mediator’s compliance with the mediation procedure, and the improvement of the mediator’s qualifications through the mediator’s education, rather than the evaluation of the institution.
Therefore, the right of the people to a trial is not satisfied with the mediation of the Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency itself, but as mentioned in Korea Constitutiona Court decision 91 Heon-ga 7, the “third-party nature and independence, fairness of procedure (節次) and prudence (愼重性)” of the person(Neutrals) conducting the procedure in each case must be secured.
영문 초록
목차
Ⅰ. 싱가포르 협약 준비 상황과 의료분쟁조정제도의 관계
Ⅱ. 의료분쟁조정중재원의 조정절차와 싱가포르 협약 조정절차와의 차이 및 정합성에 대한 검토
Ⅲ. 의료분쟁조정과 민사조정 및 민사소송절차와의 절차적 구별 필요성
Ⅳ. 결어
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 소송법상 특별대리인
- 전자문서의 소송상 의의(意義)
- 선결문제로 인한 소송절차의 중지 - 독일 민사소송법 제148조를 참고하여
- 택배업 관련 분쟁해결절차상 간접증거에 의한 화물인도사실의 증명
- ‘判決理由 中 判斷’의 旣判力과 確定判決의 遮斷效
- 소송판결에 대한 상소와 불이익변경금지
- 대체물 인도의무의 집행불능에 대비한 대상청구 - 대법원 2024. 7. 25. 선고 2021다239905 판결에 대한 평석을 겸하여
- 보조참가이익의 재검토 - 소송결과의 범위를 중심으로
- 민사소송제도 개선에 관한 법원의 몇 가지 현안
- 부당한 장래적 판례변경 - 대법원 2024. 12. 19. 선고 2020다247190, 2023다302838 전원합의체 판결
- 추심소송과 제3자의 법정소송담당 이론의 재회를 고대하며
- 한정승인에 관한 집행제한 판결에 대한 검토 - 판결절차와 집행절차의 구별을 중심으로
- 가상자산(암호화폐 등)의 법적 성질과 민사집행
- 의료분쟁조정제도의 싱가포르협약 조정제도와의 정합성에 대한 검토 - 싱가포르 협약에 대한 대응과 소송・중재절차와의 체계 정합성을 포함하여
- 미국 연방 법제상 디스커버리 의무 위반에 대한 당사자 제재에 관한 연구 - 반대사실 추론 지시를 중심으로
- 영국의 초기 법원모독법 소묘
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!
