The Jurisdictional Precedent Analysis of Medical Dispute in Dental Field

치과임상영역에서 발생된 의료분쟁의 판례분석

  • Kwon, Byung-Ki (Department of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Ahn, Hyoung-Joon (Department of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kang, Jin-Kyu (Department of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Chong-Youl (Department of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Choi, Jong-Hoon (Department of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • 권병기 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실) ;
  • 안형준 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실) ;
  • 강진규 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실) ;
  • 김종열 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실) ;
  • 최종훈 (연세대학교 치과대학 구강내과학교실)
  • Published : 2006.12.30


Along with the development of scientific technologies, health care has been growing remarkably, and as the social life quality improves with increasing interest in health, the demand for medical service is rapidly increasing. However, medical accident and medical dispute also are rapidly increasing due to various factors such as, increasing sense of people's right, lack of understanding in the nature of medical practice, over expectation on medical technique, commercialize medical supply system, moral degeneracy and unawareness of medical jurisprudence by doctors, widespread trend of mutual distrust, and lack of systematized device for solution of medical dispute. This study analysed 30 cases of civil suit in the year between 1994 to 2004, which were selected among the medical dispute cases in dental field with the judgement collected from organizations related to dentistry and department of oral medicine, Yonsei university dental hospital. The following results were drawn from the analyses: 1. The distribution of year showed rapid increase of medical dispute after the year 2000. 2. In the types of medical dispute, suit associated with tooth extraction took 36.7% of all. 3. As for the cause of medical dispute, uncomfortable feeling and dissatisfaction with the treatment showed 36.7%, death and permanent damage showed 16.7% each. 4. Winning the suit, compulsory mediation and recommendation for settlement took 60.0% of judgement result for the plaintiff. 5. For the type of medical organization in relation to medical dispute, 60.0% was found to be the private dental clinics, and 30.0% was university dental hospitals. 6. For the level of trial, dispute that progressed above 2 or 3 trials was of 30.0%. 7. For the amount of claim for damage, the claim amounting between 50 million to 100 million won was of 36.7%, and that of more than 100 million won was 13.3%, and in case of the judgement amount, the amount ranging from 10 million to 30 million won was of 40.0%, and that of more than 100 million won was of 6.7%. 8. For the number of dentist involved in the suit, 26.7% was of 2 or more dentists. 9. For the amount of time spent until the judgement, 46.7% took 11 to 20 months, and 36.7% took 21 to 30 months. 10. For medical malpractice, 46.7% was judged to be guilty, and 70% of the cases had undergone medical judgement or verification of the case by specialists during the process of the suit. 11. In the lost cases of doctors(18 cases), 72.2% was due to violence of carefulness in practice and 16.7% was due to missing of explanation to patient. Medical disputes occurring in the field of dentistry are usually of relatively less risky cases. Hence, the importance of explanation to patient is emphasized, and since the levels of patient satisfaction are subjective, improvement of the relationship between the patient and the dentist and recovery of autonomy within the group dentist are essential in addition to the reduction of technical malpractice. Moreover, management measure against the medical dispute should be set up through complement of the current doctors and hospitals medical malpractice insurance which is being conducted irrationally, and establishment of system in which education as well as consultation for medical disputes lead by the group of dental clinicians and academic scholars are accessible.


  1. 김선중, 의료과오소송법, 박영사, 2005
  2. 치과 의료분쟁 실태조사, 한국 소비자보호원 분쟁조정 2국 의료팀, 2005
  3. 김상찬, 의료사고분쟁에 대한 판례의 경향과 그 해결방안, 법과 정책, 1977;3, 225-237
  4. 사법연감, 법원행정처, 1990-1998
  5. 김종열, 법치의학, 지성출판사, 2005
  6. Pollack BR, Handbook of Dental Juridprudence and Risk Management, PSG Publishing Co. Inc,. 1980
  7. Barber B. The logic and limits of trust. 1983, Rutgers University Press, New Brumswick, N.J.
  8. Schlackman N. Intergrating quality assessment and physician incentive payment. Quality Review Bulletin 1989;15;234-37
  9. 문국진, 의료법학, 청림,1991
  10. 김충열, 내과 영역의 의료과오에 관한 판례분석, 석사학위 논문, 연세대학교 보건대학원, 서울, 2000
  11. Cassell EJ. Teaching the fundamentals of primary care. Millbank quarterly, 1995;73;373-405
  12. Parker SL, Parker GR, Why do we trust our congressman-. Journal of politics 1993;55;442-53
  13. 김재홍, 서울시 개원치과의사의 의료사고 유형 및 대책에 관한 조사연구, 석사학위 논문, 연세대학교 대학원, 서울, 1998
  14. 이덕환, 의료행위와 법, 문영사, 1998
  15. 윤정아, 서울특별시 개원 치과의사의 의료사고 및 분쟁 의 유형과 대책에 관한 연구, 박사학위 논문, 연세대학교 대학원, 서울, 2005
  16. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Tuler S. Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and community risks, Journal of social issues 1992;48; 161-87
  17. Freidson E. Profession of medicine : A study of sociology applied knowledge. New york. Dodd, Mead, 1970
  18. Mechamic. Changing medical organization and the erosion of trust. Milbank Quarterly 1996;74;171-189
  19. 김정화, 의료사고와 분쟁의 현황과 쟁점: 의료사회학적 접근, 한국사회학 1998;32;395-426
  20. Luhmann N. Trust and power, 1989, John wiley, New york
  21. Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT. Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Westport, Conn: Preger, 1995
  22. 선진국의 의료분쟁 대처방법, 치과임상 1990;8, 68-71
  23. Slovac P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 1993; 13; 675-82
  24. Blendon RJ, Taylor H. Views on health care: Public opinion in three nations. Health affairs 1989;8;149-57
  25. 신현호, 치과의료기관의 의료사고에 관련된 법률문제, 제 45회 대한치과의사협회 종합학술대회 발표논문, 2004
  26. 조윤영, 산부인과 영역의 의료분쟁에 관한 판례분석, 연세학술논집, 2000;32, 271-310