• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.19-28
• /
• 2011

Nowadays Several Countries like USA and Republic of Korea introduced Electronic Litigation System in the civil sector, and this introduction of electronic system affected several changes dramatically management environments of many firms. Especially in Republic of Korea this electronic litigation system is introduced by the purpose such as decrease paper document, cost down of litigation and the transparence, but till now most enterprises don't prepare about electronic litigation. This introduction of electronic litigation system changes the circumstance of the law environment, firms have to prepare solutions about changes of litigation systems and changes of firma management systems.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.181-208
• /
• 2010

Maternity services is often perceived as a troublesome business and obstetric litigation is on the increase in Western countries. Overall, the number of claim and cost of litigation to the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) from maternity services in the UK is increasing every year. Maternity services account for 60-70% of the total sum paid. This has widespread implications for both the individual practitioners and the institutions where they work, due to increasing malpractice insurance premiums. Fear of litigation is also attracting fewer medical graduates into the specialty, leading to a recruitment crisis in obstetrics and gynaecology. The litigation process can cause pain, suffering and distress to clinicians as well as to the patients and their families. Litigation in maternity services is the result of a complex of events when malpractice (presumed or real) impacts on the attitude of pregnant women and their environment. In such complexity, information is mandatory but may often be misinterpreted. If messages are not tailored to the receiver's capacity, communicating well with the pregnant patient becomes crucial. Therefore, to reduce medicallegal issues in obstetrics, increasing attention and an applicable standard of obstetric care to avoid negligence and medical errors should go along with other measures. Considering UK's experiences, NHS redress scheme make it easier to pursue small claims and birth related claims, without necessarily reducing the number of claims processed through the conventional legal system and perhaps encouraging even more of them. The task of dealing with the greater number of inquiries into their practice would inevitably create an added burden for clinicians and hospital managers. Thus further proposals are required to limit the cost of processing inflated claims and to consider whether clinicians should be given some protection from litigation alleging a failure to prevent birth related impairment.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.51-66
• /
• 2016

This paper considers how various types of patent disputes can be more efficiently resolved through arbitration, rather than litigation. For this analysis, it takes three types of patent disputes as a control sample - contractual disputes, infringement disputes and FRAND disputes - and assess how these disputes can be better resolved through arbitration in terms of several criteria, namely, the suitability of the decision-makers, the number of forums in which disputes have to separately decided and enforced, procedural flexibility and confidentiality. The paper takes into consideration that certain types of patent disputes, such as infringement disputes and FRAND disputes are unlikely to be subject to pre-existing arbitration agreements. In these types of disputes, parties may make the decision between arbitration and litigation based on strategic and tactical concerns, rather than legal ones. The paper concludes that, given this limitation, it is not possible to categorically state whether arbitration is more suitable than litigation for resolving patent disputes. The most sensible course to follow in adopting arbitration for patent disputes is for legal advisors to be familiar with the intricate benefits and pitfalls of arbitration in patent disputes, and to actively consider referring a dispute to arbitration over litigation after a dispute has arisen.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.133-173
• /
• 2011

Since mid-1960s the reports from the Surgeon General, the World Health Organization, and other health experts state that there is no risk-free level exposure to smoking and secondhand smoke. Tobacco smoke is made up of more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic, and at least 70 are carcinogens. The chemicals in tobacco smoke reach smoker's lungs quickly every time smoker inhale causing damages immediately. Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage smoker's DNA, which can lead to cancers. Smoking is responsible for more than 87% of lung cancers, but there are a host of other chronic diseases directly related to exposure to tobacco smoke. It's also a major cause of heart disease, stroke, aortic aneurysm, peripheral arterial disease and most of the other diseases. In the United States, each year with more than from 440,000 to 520,000 deaths caused by smoking and exposure to involuntary smoke. They conclude that smoking is the single most important source of preventable morbidity and mortality. The United States of America have about 60-year history of tobacco litigation. Tobacco litigation has been an important tool in tobacco control strategies aimed at limiting the activities of tobacco companies and providing redress to people who have become ill as a result of their use of tobacco products. Tobacco litigation is a kind of tort litigation. Quite often, as in the asbestos and other mass tort litigation episodes, tobacco litigation can play an educational role, warning the public about the magnitude of health risks that might otherwise be less clearly perceived. Tobacco litigation allows smokers, their families or other victims of smoking to sue tobacco companies in order to be compensated for the harm they have suffered. Potential benefits of tobacco litigation include compensation for smoking-related damages, strengthening regulatory activity, publicity, documents disclosure and changing tobacco industry behavior. And also tobacco litigation can limit the political activities of tobacco industry, protect human rights of smokers and non-smokers, increase burden to tobacco price-up and enhance the effects of law and politics in public health.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.39-47
• /
• 1997

Under Chinese law system, the maritime law is a special branch of the civil law. For this reason, the maritime litigation shall be governed correspondently by the civil prodecure law. However, since the maritime litigation has its own special prodecure which is different from that of general procedure, there must be some special regulations to be a supplement to the civil procedure law. In this paper, a study is made on such regulations which are "The Regulations Relating to the arrest of Ships Before Litigation" and "The Regulations Concerning the Auction of Ships Which Have Been Arrested by Maritime Court for Clearing off the Debts" The aim of this paper is to describe the basic principles established in the regulations mentioned above in order to make the people who are unfamiliar with Chinese maritime legislation to be understood about Chinese special procedure adopted in maritime litigation.maritime litigation.

• International conference on construction engineering and project management
• /
• 2005.10a
• /
• pp.693-698
• /
• 2005

Evaluation of construction claims history can provide insights to improvement opportunities in a capital project portfolio. This study analyzed construction litigation claims extracted from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) history involving the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) from 1995-2004. Twenty-four total cases were examined over this period. Both "primary" causes and "root" causes were identified and compared to 666 litigation cases reviewed by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). Based on the analysis, strategies for resolving future disputes are recommend using a 'hybrid' process prior to litigation.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.265-299
• /
• 2018

Patent litigation has been considered as a tool to protect and facilitate innovation. Ironically, yet, the misguided uses of patent litigation as a strategic tool for vigilance against competitors are acting as a hindrance for innovation. Previous studies show that the better the quality of a patent, the higher the chance of the patent being litigated. Therefore, it is particularly important for the innovating firms to take strategic precautions to minimize the risk of patent litigation. This study investigates the moderating role of firms' past alliance experiences on the relationship between patent quality and patent litigation from the perspective of a defendant. A unique dataset on patents, infringement lawsuits, and firm performances in the printed electronics industry confirms that firms' previous alliance experiences mitigate the impact of patent quality on infringement litigation. For instance, the results confirm that the presence of past alliance experience reduces the litigation rate by 33% for firms with median-quality patents. This paper makes two major contributions. First, it contributes to the literature on alliance experience by confirming its role as a reputation in mitigating future litigations. Second, this paper contributes to the literature on patent litigation by identifying a unique moderator, i.e., alliance experience, on the linkage between patent quality and litigation. An innovating firm is likely to become an alleged infringer under a false accusation. Therefore, this paper focuses on firms that partake in infringement lawsuits unwillingly. Despite the importance, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate patent litigations from the perspective of defendants.

• Journal of Cadastre & Land InformatiX
• /
• v.44 no.1
• /
• pp.17-35
• /
• 2014

There is no provision regarding the 'litigation on land boundary' under the Korean laws. Therefore, there are disputes in theory with respect to its nature, requirements for litigation, criteria for determination, etc., and it is necessary to establish the provisions of the law on this issue in the future. For this legislation, it is necessary to conduct a comparative consideration on laws of other countries which have completed the relevant provisions. This study, as a first step, researches a history of litigation for determination of boundary under the Roman law and medieval law, and furthermore introduces the German law which has relatively completed legal provisions on litigation for determination of boundary. In addition to common ownership litigation, the German law has established a provision on litigation for boundary as a judicial procedure considering a special place, called as a dispute on ownership of adjacent land, on the assumption that it is difficult or impossible to prove the boundary. The primary purpose of this litigation is to clarify a true boundary, and if such clarification is impossible, a boundary is discretionally created in accordance with the statutory standards under Article 920 of the German Civil Act (BGB). It means creation of the scope of land ownership by operation of decision, not only by the 'discovery of original boundary'. Both cases are different from each other in the aspect of judicial decision, but embracing them into one is a lawsuit for determination of boundary under the German law. Under the Korean legislation, it is necessary to make a theory containing two different criteria for determination into a single type of litigation, considering such aspects.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.26 no.10
• /
• pp.147-155
• /
• 2021

If one wants to file a lawsuit against the administrative office, he or she should decide whether to file a civil lawsuit or an administrative lawsuit. The type of lawsuit must be determined to determine which court to file the lawsuit with. Korea seems to have a clear distinction between administrative and judicial legal relationships, but it is not easy to distinguish between public and judicial cases unless the public and judicial discrimination are maintained. The practice or precedent of litigation is always difficult to distinguish because the litigation is based on the discrimination of whether the litigation belongs to a legal relationship in public law or judicial law. I believe that if the administrative litigation law establishes a provision related to the designation of a duty and stipulates that "if a litigation case is questioned whether it is an administrative or civil lawsuit, the Supreme Court-related court shall designate the competent court at the request of the parties," the lower court will be guaranteed the right to swift a trial, and the legal representatives will be freed from the exhaustive agony.

• Journal of Software Assessment and Valuation
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.25-35
• /
• 2020

In the Korean litigation system, structural maldistribution of evidence still remains a conundrum. Numerous solutions have been discussed so far and, today, few people deny the need for adopting a system similar to the discovery procedure in the United States. In the intellectual property (IP) domain, a wide range of legislative attempts have been made to improve the litigation system, especially for patent litigation. However, the adoption of discovery in copyright litigation is seldom discussed, despite the fact that copyright infringement lawsuits increasingly involve highly technical issues, especially in case of copyrightable computer programs. The lack of discussion on discovery adoption forms a stark contrast with the active attempts to adapt and adopt discovery procedure for patent litigation. In copyright infringement lawsuits, especially for copyrighted computer programs, securing evidence takes on crucial importance. However, in reality, there are numerous obstacles. Some lawsuits proceed even without properly securing the infringed work. To address this issue, the current litigation system needs to be improved by adopting a procedure similar to discovery. This paper reviews what solutions are being utilized today, and how we should approach the issue.