고지의무 위반시 보험자의 해지권 불행사와 손해방지의무 위반- 대법원 2016. 1. 14. 선고 2015다6302 판결 -

유선미,김선정 한국경영법률학회 2016 經營法律 Vol.27 No.1

In this case, the insured of original insurance contract had breach of duty of disclosure when he was contract with insurer. But the insurer did not terminate the original contract. After insurance accident occurred the plaintiff(insurer of original insurance contract) paid proceeds and claimed insurance money to the defendant(reinsurer). But the defendant refused to the remittance because the plaintiff did not exercise the right of termination to the original contract on the ground of breach of the duty of disclosure. The insurance contract is not necessary to become rescission of a contract just as the reason of the breach of the duty of disclosure. But in this case, the defendant insist that the nonuse of the insurer's right of rescission in original contract resulted in the breach of insured' s duty of avert or minimizing the losses. In other words, the reinsured did not exercise the right to terminate contract after occurrence of insured accident and consequently failed to prevent expansion of damage. In an action by the reinsured against to the reinsurer on the reinsurance contract, the reinsurer raised defense which was referred above. The Supreme court decided in favor of compliant on the ground that the breach of duty of avert or minimizing the losses requires the obligator's total negligence but in this case the complaint breached his duty with slight negligence and did not fulfill the requirement. But the writer concludes that the reinsured had breach his duty with gross negligence since he is the professional policyholder in the insurance contracts. 이 사건 원보험계약자는 사기에 가까운 묵비로 보험계약을 체결하여 고지의무를 위반하였다. 보험사고 발생 후, 보험금을 지급한 원보험자는 재보험자에게 보상을 청구하였으나 재보험자는 지급을 거절하였다. 그 이유는 원보험자가 고지의무 위반을 이유로 보험계약을 해지할 수 있었음에도 불구하고 해지권을 행사하지 아니하여 자신에 대한 손해방지의무에 위반하였다는 것이다. 재보험자는 원보험자의 지급책임과 자신의 지급책임을 따졌다. 전자는 운명추정조항에 따라 마무리되었다. 후자는 손해방지의무 위반 문제로 다루어졌다. 원보험자는 원보험계약자가 보험금을 청구할 경우, 4가지 면책사유를 들어 보험금지급을 거절할 수 있었기 때문에 굳이 고지의무위반을 이유로 해지하지 않은 것이라고 주장하였다. 그러나 원보험계약 당사자간의 보험금지급을 둘러 싼 분쟁을 다룬 대한상사중재원 중재에서, 중재판정부는 원보험자의 면책사유를 한 가지도 인정하지 않았다. 대법원은 원보험자의 해지권행사 포기가 손해방지의무위반이기는 하지만 중과실로 인한 의무위반으로 보기는 어렵다고 보았다. 그러나 필자는 원보험자가 보험사업을 영위하는 전문가라는 점에서 중과실로 피고 재보험사에 대한 손해방지의무를 위반한 것이라고 생각한다.

가입전 발병과 보험계약의 무효 법리에 대한 연구

최병규 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2019 江原法學 Vol.56 No.-

Private insurance contracts play an important role in supplementing the social insurance system operated by the state, as shown in the example of accidental health insurance. Health insurance, accident insurance, and life insurance are important for the protection of the old and the security of the people. This is because of the increasing demand for various diseases and economical demands from accidents. However, in the area of ​​insurance contract law, the subject of dispute is the case where an accident occurs before the insurance contract is concluded. If you have already insured that an accident has occurred, the contract will be null and void. However, there are cases where judgment is ambiguous. In the case of a cerebral palsy in the Supreme Court, if the cerebral palsy is not a sudden illness resulting from medical emotions and even if the mother of the insured child does not know the insurance, even if it is confirmed that it was a cerebral palsy before the insurance, the contract is invalid according to Article 644 of the Commercial Act . However, even though it is foreseeable that an insurance accident will occur in the case of anaplastic neoplasia, the contract is still valid notwithstanding Article 644 of the Commercial Act, unless the accident has occurred at the time of contracting. In Germany there is no obligation of notification of liability, or any responsibility for liability for accidents before consent. And that the existence of any suspicious grounds or negligence is not sufficient to elicit the legal effect of Article 2 (2) of the German Insurance Contract Act. If the parties knowingly and intentionally disapprove, they should actively identify with the case. This point should also be referred to our case. In the case of the matter in question, the policy contractor before signing the contract can clearly be seen as recognizing that there is a problem with the insured person. Therefore, in light of the law of retrospective insurance or the law of the Commercial Act, Article 644, the insurance contract is valid and it should be evaluated as difficult to pay insurance money. If you are insured even if you know that you have a problem with your child, it is difficult to pay the insurance claim for the insurance contract in light of the legal opinion of Article 644 of the Commercial Act. In order to prevent the dispute before the contract in advance, the court should precede the case and publicize the type so that the contracting parties know. Thereby making it possible to increase the predictability. This type of work should be further done. 민영보험계약은 실손의료보험의 예에서 보듯이 국가가 운영하는 사회보험제도를 보완하는 중요한 역할을 담당하고 있다. 질병보험이나 상해보험, 생명보험 등은 인보험으로서 국민들의 노후보장, 안심보장 등을 위하여 중요한 의미가 있다. 각종 질병과 사고로 인한 경제적 수요가 증가하고 있기 때문이다. 그런데 보험계약법 분야에서 분쟁의 대상이 자주 되는 영역이 바로 보험계약체결이전에 사고가 발생한 경우이다. 이미 당사자가 사고가 발생하였음을 알고 보험에 가입하면 그 계약은 무효이다. 그러나 판단이 애매한 경우가 계속하여 발생하고 있다. 실제 발생한 A사의 분쟁사례에 의하면 어머니가 보험가입전 아이의 이상을 인지한 상태에서 보험계약을 체결한 것이 분쟁으로 비화하였다. 본 논문은 이 사례를 분석함을 목적으로 한다. 관련 판례로서, 대법원의 뇌성마비사건에서는 의학적 감정의 결과 뇌성마비는 갑자기 생기는 질병이 아니고 비록 피보험자인 아이의 어머니도 모른 채 보험에 가입하였더라도 보험가입이전에 뇌성마비였음이 확인되면 당해 계약은 상법 제644조에 따라서 무효라는 취지이다. 그러나 근이양증 사건에서는 필연적으로 보험사고가 발생할 것이 예견되어도 계약체결시 아직 그 사고가 발생한 것이 아니면 당해 계약은 상법 제644조에도 불구하고 유효하다는 것이다. 양 판례가 각각 의미가 있는 것으로서 그 결론이 법리상 수긍할 수 있다. 독일에는 낙부통지의무나 승낙 전 사고 시 책임을 지우는 규정이 없다. 그리고 의심스러운 근거가 존재한다든지 과실에 의하여 모르는 것으로는 독일 보험계약법 제2조 제2항의 법적 효과를 이끌어 내는 데에 있어서 충분하지 않다고 보고 있다. 그리고 당사자가 알면서 일부러 묵비하는 경우에는 적극적으로 안 경우와 동일시하여야 한다고 보고 있다. 이 점은 우리의 경우도 참고하여야 한다. 문제된 사안에서는 계약체결 전 보험계약자는 분명히 피보험자에게 문제가 있다는 것을 인지한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 따라서 소급보험의 법리나 상법 제644조의 법리에 비추어 볼 때 동 보험계약이 유효하여 보험금을 지급하기는 어려운 사안으로 평가하여야 한다. 아이에게 문제가 있다는 점을 알고도 보험에 가입한 경우에는 상법 제644조의 법리에 비추어 당해 보험계약에 대하여 보험금을 지급하기는 어렵다. 계약 전 사고에 대한 분쟁을 미리 차단하게 위해서는 법원의 판례를 유형화하고 그 유형을 공표하여 계약당사자들이 알 수 있도록 하여야 한다. 그를 통하여 예측가능성을 높일 수도 있게 된다. 이러한 유형화 작업을 앞으로도 계속 해나가야 한다.

외국의 개정 보험계약법과 고지의무의 나아갈 방향

최병규 한국경영법률학회 2009 經營法律 Vol.19 No.3

The insurance contract law has experienced significant change recently in many countries worldwide. Especially in germany and in japan there was heavy reform in the field of insurance contract law. The current korean insurance contract law in korean commercial code was effected in 1963. It has many problems. The reform discussion about korean insurance contract law is being done in national assembly. To solve the problems we must look at foreign laws. Especially the german insurance contract law(VVG) has influences to korean law because we adopted the continental legal system. The german insurance contract law was reformed in 2007 significantly. It was effected on 1. jan. 2008. The duty of disclosure was also very important reform issue in germany. Japan has enforced new separate insurance law on 6. june 2008. The japanese insurance law has adopted the duty of passive answer in regard of duty of disclosure. The contract of insurance is the primary illustration of a class of contracts described as uberrimae fidei, that is, of the utmost good faith. As a result, the potential parties to it are bound to volunteer to each other before the contract is concluded information which is material. The requirement of utmost good faith has also been held to apply throughout the contract. The duty of disclosure is the primary expression of this character. We should regard this special character of insurance contract when we discuss about the reform of duty of disclosure. The reform of insurance contract law is also in korea hot issue. This study concentrates on showing the current problems of insurance contract law in regard of duty of disclosure and providing some suggestions about reform of korean insurance contract law. It has tried to show the right direction for the reform about the duty of disclosure and its violation effects.

중세 지중해 지역의 보험성 외환대차계약

서성석 ( Seong Seok Seo ) 부산외국어대학교 지중해연구소 2006 지중해지역연구 Vol.8 No.1

600 years have passed, since the primitive shape of marine insurance "Mutuum" has risen up in the mediterranean area. And it has been recognized as a "Loan Contract" which has functions of insurance. However, until now we cannot realize the concrete meaning of the contract precisely. And what made the "Mutuum" change to the pure insurance in the 15th century. Therefore, in this thesis, I make a point of understanding the real meaning of mutuum contract`s theory, and finding out the real cause of pure insurance contract`s nativity. On the process of research, I discovered a particular shape of insurance contract by chance, and I named it "insurance-loan contract". That contract has a different theory in comparison with the contents of both the former shape of mutuum and pure insurance contract of Italia in the 15th century. And the contract is used on around 13~14th century. We regard it is the new shape of contract that we haven`t met before. So, I tried to define the concrete meaning of the contract`s contents and relations of both insurer and insured. I believe this discover gives us a significant interest to understand the real process of the insurance contract`s progress on the viewpoint of historical study.

보험금 사기청구에 대한 보험계약법상의 입법론

장경환 경희대학교 법학연구소 2017 경희법학 Vol.52 No.1

The Chapter Ⅳ of the Korean Commercial Code regulates insurance contracts and therefore it is called Korean Insurance Contract Law. It was revised on March 11th, 2014 to solve many problems arising since its revision in 1991, and it has come into effect on March 12th, 2015. However, it has no stipulations concerning fraudulent claims. In this Article the various arguments concerning fraudulent claims in Korea are examined. Also, the stipulations concerning them of recent foreign insurance laws are reviewed, such as sect. 12 & 13 of the United Kingdom’s Insurance Act 2015, sect. 56 of Australia’s Insurance Contracts Act 1984, §§ 28 u. 31 Deutsches Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (VVG-neu), article L113-11 du Code des assurances, sect. 30 & 31 of Japanese Insurance Law and sect. 403 of New York Insurance Law. As a result, I would like to propose legislative directions concerning fraudulent claims in Korean Insurance Contract Law, as follows: 1. If the policyholder, the insured or the beneficiary makes a fraudulent claim under an insurance contract, the insurer is not liable to pay the claim and any other claims tainted by the claim. In addition, the insurer may cancel the insurance contract by notice to the policyholder within one month after it knows that the claim has been made fraudulently; if the third, who has had a claim according to this Act, makes a fraudulent claim, the insurer is not liable to pay the claim and any other claims tainted by the claim. In addition, the third’s indemnity claim against the insured due to a relevant insured event is forfeited. However, the insurer may not cancel the insurance contract. 2. If only a minimal or insignificant part of the claim is made fraudulently and non-payment of the remainder of the claim would be harsh and unfair, the insurer is liable to pay the remainder of the claim and it may not cancel the insurance contract; if a part of the claim, which arises only from a separate part of insurance subject matters, is made fraudulently and non-payment of the remainder of the claim, which arises from the other separate part of insurance subject matters, would be harsh and unfair, the insurer is liable to pay the remainder of the claim and it may not cancel the insurance contract. 3. If the insurer cancels an insurance contract due to a fraudulent claim, the contract is treated as has been terminated with effect from the time of the fraudulent claim. In addition, the insurer may demand the payment of premiums under the contract until it knows that the claim has been made fraudulently. 4. If the insurer knows that the third has made a fraudulent claim under an insurance contract, it should notify without delay the insured that it is not liable to pay the claim and the third’s indemnity claim against the insured has been forfeited. If the insurer has not notified and the insured, who does not know the forfeiture of the third’s indemnity claim against itself, indemnifies the third for loss or damage due to a relevant insured event, the insurer should pay the insured the indemnity sum to the extent of insurance money under the insurance contract. 우리나라의 보험계약법인 상법 제4편은 1991년에 개정된 후 실로 22년여 만인 2014년 3월 11일에 개정되었고, 2015년 3월 12일부터 시행되고 있다. 그러나 이 개정법에는 보험금의 사기청구에 관하여 당초 법무부가 정부안으로 국회에 제출했던 제657조의2(제1안)도, 상법상설특별위원회 보험법분과가 법무부에 건의했던 제657조의2(제2안)도 반영되지 않았다. 상법 제4편이 개정된 후 영국에서는 보험금 사기청구조항이 들어있는 보험법이 2015년 2월 12일에 제정되었고, 우리나라에서도 보험사기의 폐해가 심각한 사회문제로 대두되면서 2016년 3월 29일에 공법적 규제를 주된 내용으로 하는 보험사기방지 특별법이 제정되었다. 이러한 국내외 사정을 계기로 보험금의 사기청구에 관한 보험계약법적 규정을 상법 제4편에 입법해야 할 필요성이 다시금 부각되고 있다. 이에 이 글에서는 제1안과 제2안에 대한 그간의 찬반 논의를 살펴보고, 아울러 2015년 영국보험법 등 우리나라의 논의에서 거론되는 외국의 입법례를 살펴본 후에, 이를 토대로 상법 제4편의 보험금사기청구에 관한 입법방향을 다음과 같이 제시하였다. ① 보험계약자, 피보험자 또는 보험수익자가 보험금의 사기청구를 한 경우에는, 보험자는 그 청구액 전부에 대해 면책되고 또한 계약을 해지할 수 있는 것으로 한다. 보험금청구권을 가지는 제3자가 보험금의 사기청구를 한 경우에는, 보험자는 그 청구액 전부에 대해 면책되지만 계약은 해지할 수 없는 것으로 한다. ② 실제의 손해를 초과하여 청구된 부분이 경미하거나 독립된 일부의 보험목적에 속하여 보험계약자 등의 보험금청구권을 전부 상실시키는 것이 현저하게 부당한 경우에는, 보험자는 실제 손해에 따른 보험금이나 초과청구되지 아니한 보험목적의 손해에 대한 보험금을 지급해야 하고, 또한 계약(독립된 보험목적이 여러 개인 경우에는 초과청구되지 아니한 보험목적에 대한 계약)을 해지할 수 없는 것으로 한다. ③ 보험자는 사기청구의 사실을 안 날로부터 1월 내에 계약을 해지할 수 있는 것으로 한다. 보험자가 계약을 해지하는 경우에는, 그 해지의 효력은 사기청구가 있은 때로부터 발생하고, 또한 보험자는 사기청구의 사실을 안 날까지의 보험료를 청구할 수 있는 것으로 한다. ④ 보험금청구권을 가지는 제3자가 사기청구를 한 경우에는 그가 보험사고로 인하여 피보험자에 대해서 가지고 있는 손해배상청구권도 상실되는 것으로 한다. 보험자가 제3자의 사기청구로 면책되는 경우에는 그 사실 및 제3자의 피보험자에 대한 손해배상청구권의 상실을 지체 없이 피보험자에게 통지하는 것으로 한다. 보험자가 이 통지를 하지 않은 경우에, 선의의 피보험자가 제3자에게 손해배상의 변제, 승인 또는 화해를 한 때에는 상법 제723조 제3항에 따르는 것으로 한다.

보험약관의 교부․설명의무위반과 그 효과의 문제

황근수 원광대학교 법학연구소 2008 圓光法學 Vol.24 No.4

The Insurance Contract Law of korean Commercial Code has been revised in 1991. Commercial Code §638 is the article of insurance contract between the insurer and the insurant, there are several problems about §638-3(the policy delivery and explain) in case and practical system. The korean Commercial Law which is a general law on insurance contract is different one from the Regulation Law §3 on exceptional provisions and effective ones. The contract has been applied with the case in the practical business, The effect of the Regulation Law and Insurance Law Infringement is different by the case in the court. The Commercial Law codified that insurer should deliver the insurance policy and explain the important fact of the provisions to the insurant in korean Commercial Code §638-3 ①․②. The insurant could cancel the insurance contract within a month to infringement. However, the Regulation Law §3④ stipulates that couldn't insist on the contract in this case in Korea. The questions are followings. ① the insurance policy delivery and explain, ② the term of the insurant's(insured) canceling the contract within a month, ③ the legal questions unless the insurant cancels the contract and ④ basic regulations of exemption by the case. The title of korean Commercial Law §638 clears on proper regulations in 'deliver and explain' and the initial date in reckoning of canceling the contract must be revised ‘the date of receipt of insurance policy' and further the contract followed the policy unless the insurant cancel the contract. Moreover, the basis of exemption requires to codify on Commercial Law in conformed with the case and the practical business in advance. In relation to this, the Revised Draft in Commercial Law has been arranged in 2008, but 'explain important fact' and 'expansion of cancel term' §638-3①② have been amended only. I think that the contract law of Commercial Code requires to be revised on taking the insurer's and insurant's interest into account, and in conformed with the cases and practical business of insurance in the future.

보험사고 발생 후 고지의무 위반에 따른 보험계약해지 및 보험금 지급책임의 범위

이성남(Lee, Sung Nam) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2017 법과기업연구 Vol.7 No.1

보험사고가 보험계약의 해지 이전에 발생하고, 해지 후에 보험사고에 따른 사건의 진행이나 과정이 전개되고 결과가 발생하는 특수한 보험사고의 경우 가령 자동차사고가 발생하고 피해자가 입원, 치료, 사망의 경과를 거치거나 화재사고가 발생하고 연소 소화되는 경우 암이 발생하여 암 진단, 암 입원, 암 수술, 암 사망이 연속하여 발생하는 경우 중대한 질병이 발병하여 입원, 수술 사망의 과정을 거치는 경우에 이러한 사고를 하나의 보험사고로 볼 수 있는지 여부는 해지 이전에 발생한 위험의 발생과 동종 내지 단일성이 인정되느냐 여부를 기준으로 판단하여야 한다. 암 진단, 입원, 수술, 사망은 암의 발생이라는 단일한 위험이 진행되는 경과에 따라 보험금 지급사유를 달리한 것으로 볼 여지도 있으나 각각의 보험금 지급사유가 하나의 위험단위를 형성하고 이에 대한 보험료도 달리하고 있는 점을 고려할 때 암의 발생에 따른 보험사고를 세부적으로 나누어 규정한 것으로 해석하는 것이 타당하다. 따라서 암진단이 내려진 후 보험계약이 해지되고 암 사망에 이른 경우에는 새로운 보험사고 발생으로 보아야 할 것이고, 이에 대해 보험자는 보험금 지급책임을 부담하지 않는 것이 원칙이다. 다만 보험실무의 현실을 되돌아 볼 때 고지의무 위반에 대한 해지를 자의적으로 운용할 가능성이 높다. 또한 인과관계 없는 보험사고의 경우에는 인수한 위험의 범위에서 발생한 사고이므로 암의 발병으로 인하여 연속하여 곧 일어날 수 있는 보험금 지급사유에 대해 어느 단계까지만 지급하고 그 이후 단계에서 보험금 지급을 제한하는 것은 보험계약자 보호 측면에서 비판이 제기될 소지도 배제할 수 없다. 이러한 측면에서 보면 개정 전 상법 조항에 따라 보험사고와 인과관계 여부에 따라 해지여부를 달리 판단하는 다수설 및 판례가 일부 긍정적인 작용을 한 것으로 평가된다. 따라서 고지의무 위반사실과 인과관계 없는 보험사고에 대한 적정한 보상 방안을 강구하는 방향의 새로운 제도개선이 필요할 것으로 사료된다. An issue arises when considering the case where an insurance accident has occurred before the termination of the accident insurance contract (“Insurance Contract”) and certain losses under the terms and conditions are covered (“Covered Losses”) whereas other losses are not covered based on a failure to disclose a material fact when applying for the concerned insurance (“Non-Covered Losses”) and those losses that arise after the termination of the Insurance Contract in relation to the covered losses (“Post-Termination Losses”) which should be covered in the same manner as Covered Losses arising during the term of the insurance contract. In this case, the issue should be reviewed and determined based on the continuity or unity of the underlying facts for the Covered Losses, Non-Covered Losses and Post-Termination Losses. Generally, the preliminary diagnosis of cancer, admission to a medical facility surgery and the subsequent death may all be viewed as a single accident (or occurrence) all arising from the development of cancer in an individual patient (each a “Cancer-Related Event”). However, each of these Cancer-Related Events constitute a single occurrence of a particular risk all in sequence when calculating insurance premiums and payment of claims from an insurance perspective. From an underwriting and actuarial perspective, insurance premiums are calculated by the insurer and paid by the policyholder for each event arising from the initial diagnosis cancer. Therefore, it is also reasonable to view each Cancer-Related Event as an independent insurance accident resulting from the occurrence following the diagnosis of cancer. Based on the foregoing, if the Insurance Contract is terminated by the insurer based on a contractual grounds for termination after the diagnosis of cancer in an individual patient (i.e., a single Cancer-Related Event) and a subsequent death by cancer occurred, then the death as a Cancer-Related Event should be regarded as a new insurance accident separate and apart from all other Cancer-Related Events. In this case and in principle, the insurer would not be responsible and liable for any Post-Termination Losses breaking the chain of Cancer-Related Losses due to each being a single accident covered under the Insurance Contract. Notwithstanding, it is highly unlikely that an insurer would arbitrarily exercise a termination right under the Insurance Contract for failing to disclose a material fact by the policyholder to the insurer for underwriting and actuarial purposes. Moreover, a distinction should be made between those Post-Termination Losses related to the basis for the termination of the Insurance Contract and those deemed as Uncovered Losses unrelated to the same termination of the Insurance Contract. In the event that an insurer declines to pay claims made by a policyholder, insured or beneficiary on the basis that a Cancer-Related Loss is an Uncovered Loss because it is a Post-Termination Loss following the termination of an Insurance Contract may be subject to a dispute as well as public criticism from a consumer/customer protection perspective. In this respect, it can be said that the majority view and relevant preceddents have had some favorable impact on issue of coverage and liability of Post-Termination Losses; but examination and discussion with legal and regulatory reform must be conducted to arrive at reasonable interpretations and compensation for insurance accidents which are and should be covered but are unrelated to those claims due to the breach of a policyholder’s duty to disclose material facts when entering into an Insurance Contract.

부당 승환계약 간주 조항에 대한 검토

백영화 (사)한국보험법학회 2022 보험법연구 Vol.16 No.1

The Insurance Business Act (the “IBA”) prohibits unfair replacement of insurance contracts, and the IBA has a clause under which a replacement of insurance contracts made within 1 month or 6 months is deemed, under certain conditions, to have been made unfairly (hereafter referred to as a “deeming clause”). However, there are certain parts that are not clear or that may cause disputes in interpreting and applying this deeming clause. First, if the existing insurance contract was maintained at the time of subscription for a new insurance contract and then terminated, there is an issue whether the comparison explanation could be provided at the time of the termination of the existing insurance contract or the comparison explanation should be provided at the time of subscribing for a new insurance contract. The IBA does not clearly define the timing of comparison explanation, and there may be differences in interpretation, however, there are cases where a number of insurance companies have been sanctioned for this issue. According to the interpretation of the context of the IBA, it seems unreasonable to assume that it is an unfair replacement on the ground that the comparison explanation was not provided at the time of subscription for a new insurance contract. If the regulators are to operate this regulation to provide comparison explanation at the time of subscription of a new insurance contract, it will be necessary to clearly present standards for the timing of comparison explanation through authoritative interpretation or guidelines. Further, there may also be an issue whether or not the deeming clause applies even when it is clearly proven that the policyholder voluntarily terminated the existing insurance contract and the solicitor had no involvement therein. In terms of the text of the current deeming clause, in the case where the existing insurance contract is terminated first, unlike the case in which the existing insurance contract is terminated later, if there is only the fact that the existing insurance contract is terminated without asking whether the policyholder voluntarily terminated the existing insurance contract or whether the solicitor was involved in it, it may be viewed as the deeming clause should apply. With respect to the foregoing, it will be necessary to match the provisions of the pre-termination case and the post-termination case through amendment to the IBA. In addition, considering the fact that the IBA originally intended to prohibit solicitors from unfairly inducing replacement of insurance contracts, if it is clearly proven that the policyholder voluntarily terminated the existing insurance contract and that the solicitor did not participate or involve therein, it would be reasonable not to apply the deeming clause. The rules are to be improved in the direction of more rationalizing the regulations including the foregoing matters and improving the possibility of offenders complying with the regulations, and through this, the effect of preventing unfair replacement is to be enhanced. 보험업법은 부당 승환계약을 금지하고 있으며, 1개월 또는 6개월 이내에 이루어진 승환에 대해 일정한 경우에는 승환이 부당하게 이루어진 것으로 간주하는 조항을 두고 있다. 그런데 이러한 부당 승환계약 간주 조항을 해석 및 적용함에 있어서 명확하지 않거나 다툼이 발생할 수 있는 부분들이 있다. 우선, 새로운 보험계약의 청약 시점에서는 기존 보험계약이 정상적으로 유지 중이었다가 나중에 소멸되는 경우에, 기존 보험계약의 소멸 시점에서 비교 안내를 하면 되는 것인지 아니면 새로운 보험계약의 청약 시점에서 비교 안내를 해야 하는 것인지가 문제될 수 있다. 보험업법에서는 비교 안내 시점에 대해서 명확하게 정하고 있지 않고 해석상 이견이 있을 수 있는데, 실제로 이 문제로 다수의 보험회사들이 제재를 받는 사례들도 나오고 있는 것이다. 현행 보험업법의 해석상으로는 새로운 보험계약의 청약 시점에서 비교 안내를 하지 않았음을 이유로 부당 승환계약으로 의율하는 것은 무리가 있어 보이며, 만약 새로운 보험계약의 청약 시점에서 비교 안내를 하도록 규제를 운영하고자 한다면 비교 안내 시점에 대해서 유권해석이나 감독당국 지침 등을 통해 명확하게 기준을 제시하는 것이 필요할 것이다. 보험계약자가 기존 보험계약을 자발적으로 소멸시킨 것이고 모집종사자는 기존 보험계약의 소멸에 전혀 관여하지 않았다는 점이 명백하게 입증되는 경우에도 부당 승환계약 간주 조항이 적용되는 것인지 여부도 문제가 될 수 있다. 특히 현행 부당 승환계약 간주 조항의 문언상으로는 기존 보험계약의 소멸이 나중에 이루어진 후소멸 건과는 달리 기존 보험계약의 소멸이 먼저 이루어진 선소멸 건의 경우에는, 보험계약자가 기존 보험계약을 자발적으로 소멸시켰는지 모집종사자가 이에 관여하였는지 여부를 전혀 묻지 않고 기존 보험계약의 소멸이라는 사실만 있으면 부당 승환계약 간주 조항이 적용되는 것으로 해석될 소지가 있다. 이에 대해서는, 법 개정을 통해서 선소멸 건과 후소멸 건의 규정 내용을 일치시킬 필요가 있을 것이다. 또한 원래 보험업법에서는 모집종사자가 부당하게 보험계약의 승환을 유도하는 행위를 금지하는 것이라는 취지를 고려하면, 보험계약자가 기존 보험계약을 자발적으로 소멸시킨 것이고 모집종사자는 기존 보험계약의 소멸에 전혀 관여하지 않았다는 점이 명백하게 입증되는 경우에는 부당 승환계약으로 간주되지 않도록 규정을 운영하는 것이 타당할 것으로 생각된다. 향후 이러한 사항을 포함하여 부당 승환계약 금지 규제를 보다 합리화하고 수범자의 규제 준수 가능성을 제고하는 방향으로 제도 개선이 이루어짐으로써 부당 승환계약 방지 효과를 높일 수 있기를 기대한다.

독일보험계약법상 대리인규정에 대한 연구

최병규(Byeong-Gyu Choi) 한국기업법학회 2011 企業法硏究 Vol.25 No.1

The insured makes insurance contract through attorney or deputy of the insurer. Therefore, the right and duty of attorney or deputy is very important for the effectiveness of the insurance contract. In other words, insurance intermediaries play very important role in the insurance practice. There are 3 categories among insurance intermediary. Insurance agent, insurance broker and insurance sales man are the 3 categories. The insurance contract law has experienced significant change recently in many countries worldwide. Especially in germany and in japan there was heavy reform in the field of insurance contract law. In germany the right and duty of insurance intermediaries were regulated in insurance contract law. Its origin was the EU-insurance intermediary directive. Recently the reform of insurance contract law is also in korea hot issue. The current korean insurance contract law in korean commercial code was effected in 1963. But korean insurance contract law has many problems, especially in regard of the right and duty of insurance intermediary. The reform discussion about korean insurance contract law is being done in national assembly since 2007. Thereby some regulations about insurance agent and insurance sales man will be added. To solve the problems in korea we must look at foreign laws. Especially the german insurance contract law (Versicherungsvertragsgesetz v. 1908) has influences to korean law because we adopted the continental legal system. We belong namely to civil law country. The german insurance contract law was reformed in 2007 significantly. It was effected on 1. jan. 2008. The right of insurance broker and agent has experienced heavy changes by this reform. The right and duty of insurance agent and broker was very important reform issue in germany. This study concentrates on showing the current problems of insurance contract law in regard of the right of attorney or deputy. The author has meanwhile tried to provide some suggestions about reform of korean insurance contract law in regard of the right of attorney or deputy. It has tried to show the right direction for the reform about the right of attorney or deputy of insurer. The right to make contract and the right to receive premium should be regulated in insurance contract law. German regulations in regard of the right of attorney of the insurance agent can provide good models to korea. Therefore the author has tried to point out the merits of german regulations per comparative legal study. In the long run the adopt of german examples can supply useful models to south korea.

보험목적양도법리의 한독비교연구

최병규 ( Byeong Gyu Choi ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2012 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.21

The insurance contract law is very important for the welfare and happiness of citizens. Many countries make an effort to provide better insurance contract law. In fact, insurance contract law has developed significantly worldwide in recent years. In particular, in Germany and Japan, there have been noteworthy reforms in the field of insurance contract law. The existing Korean insurance contract law, which is a part of the Korean Commercial Code, entered into force in 1963. In fact, the legal provisions in this Act have some problems. For this reason, the discussion on the reform of Korean insurance contract law has been made in the Korean National Assembly. The Korean law-makers need to think it is essential to look at the relevant foreign provisions in order to solve the existing problems in Korea. Furthermore, the German insurance contract law (VVG) has influenced Korean law because the Korean jurisdiction adopted the continental legal system or the so-called Civil Law, and the Korean scholars can learn the regulatory reform from the recent development in Germany. The German reform by the enactment of the year 2007 are as such following: the reform of definition in insurance contract, the reflection of technical development, the reform of insurance police, the duty to give sufficient information to other contracting parties, the reform of the duty of disclosure, the abandonment of all or nothing principle, the duty to guarantee contract dividend regularly. Moreover, the duty of disclosure has been considered very important in Germany. Japan also adopted the duty of passive answer with regards to the duty of disclosure. Regardless of insurance contract, the insurance object can be sold out to another person. The purchaser can make a new insurance contract. But between the times it can happen that the insurance object exists without insurance protection. It should be avoided. The transfer of insurance objects is very important especially in fire insurance. Therefore the most insurance contract law has regulations about legal treatment of transfer of insurance objects. In korean commercial code there is one regulation (§ 679 KCC). In korean law, the purchaser is presumed as a insured. But presumption is not enough. The purchaser should be regarded as a insured. That is the attitude of german law. The parties should give notice about the fact of transfer of insurance objects to insurer. In the korean law there is no regulation about the effects of negligence of the notice. The insurer and the purchaser should be able to cancel the insurance contract. Furthermore the insurer should be able to reject the fulfillment of contract when the risk of the purchaser is too high. The old insured and the new insured (purchaser) should pay premium. The premium In this regard the korean law should be reformed. By the reform discussion we can refer to the rational contents of foreign (especially japanese and german) laws. The government, scholars, insurance associations and insurance companies should make hard effort to solve the problems about legislation on transfer of insurance objects.