黃昏

張德祚 文章社 1939 文章 Vol.1 No.7

告知義務違反과 保險詐欺

장덕조 한국상사법학회 2018 商事法硏究 Vol.37 No.1

This article is a study of incidents of disclosure obligation and insurance fraud. A number of cases similar to this one are contested in the courts and the like, and elaborate research on related issues and consensus based on these studies are needed. In the case of breach of obligation, insurers are inclined to rate insurance fraud, and there are even worries that insurance consumers may be subject to criminal punishment for violating disclosure obligation. Therefore, the issue of how much a breach of obligation can relate to a fraud as an offense is important. More precisely, whether the parties can actively divulge the case of applying for insurance under the intention to notify the insurance company and the case where the insurer is insisting due to the solicitation of the insurer, You should also look at whether the fact that you could take action and filter it, but did not take such action, affect the nature of the fraud. The deceit of disclosure obligation and fraud are completely separate. Intentional deliberation, which is a subjective requirement for breach of disclosure obligation, may include deceit, but is a fairly broad concept that distinguishes it. In addition, it is not easy to recognize the direct causal relationship between the disposal behavior and the breach of disclosure obligation, even if there is a breach of the obligation to obliterate, since the accident must occur indiscriminately. The criminal law is a prohibition norm for punishment, and as it is recognized that it should be tolerated only as a last resort in the light of the severity of punishment, the criminal law should be complementary in principle of private autonomy. It is quite natural to put fraudulent criminals abusing insurance to the strictest degree, but it is a big threat to the policy contractor or the consumer to generalize it as a criminal matter if the violation of the dis obligation arises. 이 글은 고지의무위반과 사기죄의 성립 여부에 관한 사건을 연구한 것이다. 이 건과 유사한 다수의 사건들이 법원 등에서 다투어지고 있어 관련 쟁점에 관한 정치한 연구와 그 연구들에 기반한 합의와 정리가 필요한 때이다. 보험자들이 고지의무위반의 경우 보험사기죄로 의율하려는 경향이 있고 보면, 고지의무위반이 형사처벌로 연결될 수 있다. 그러므로 고지의무위반을 부작위범으로서의 사기죄와 어느 정도 연관지을 수 있을 것인지 하는 쟁점은 중요하게 다루어질 필요가 있다. 보다 세부적으로는 당사자가 적극적으로 허위고지할 의사를 갖고 보험가입신청을 한 경우와 보험설계사의 권유로 보험에 가입하면서 소극적으로 불고지한 경우를 나누어 처리할 수 있는지 여부 등과, 보험자측에서 사전검사 등 조치를 취하여 필터링할 수 있었음에도 그러한 조치를 취하지 아니한 사실이 사기죄의 성부에 영향을 미치는지 여부 등도 살펴야 한다. 이 글은 고지의무위반의 고의와 사기죄에서의 기망행위는 전혀 별개의 것임을 논증한다. 고지의무위반에서의 주관적 요건인 고의는 편취의사를 포함할 수 있으나 이와는 구별되는 상당히 넓은 개념이다. 또한 고지의무위반이 있다 하더라도 불확정한(우연한) 사고가 발생하여야 하고 그로 인한 보험금지급이 있어야 하므로, 처분행위와 고지의무위반과의 직접적 인과관계를 인정하는 것은 쉽지 않다. 형법은 형벌을 수단으로 삼는 금지규범이고, 형벌의 가혹성에 비추어 최후수단으로서만 용인되어야 한다고 인식되는 만큼, 사적 자치의 원칙상 형법은 보충적이어야 한다. 보험을 악용한 사기범죄자들을 엄벌에 처함은 지극히 당연하나, 고지의무위반이 다투어지는 경우 이를 사기죄로 일반화하여 형사문제로 비화시키는 것은 보험계약자나 소비자들에게 큰 위협이 아닐 수 없다.

2017년도 보험법 판례의 동향과 그 연구

장덕조 한국상사판례학회 2018 상사판례연구 Vol.31 No.1

This article deals with the case law of insurance law in 2017. In 2017, a number of insurance law precedents were issued, among which the important decisions are as follows. First, further investigation is required to relate the deceitful act of fraud to the problem of violating the obligation of disclosure. Considering the various circumstances such as the fact that the disclosure obligation system is overly harsh to insurance consumers and the overall improvement process, it is necessary to consider whether the logic of granting the guarantor human rights status to the violation of disclosure obligation, In-depth demonstration is necessary. Second, the conclusions are correct with the ruling on double insurance and compensation rights in liability insurance. However, it is not appropriate for the explanatory part of the direct claim to be exercised by the insurer of the common illegal act against the insurer of the other joint illegal act. The right to acquire the insurer is not a claim for damages, but a right of recourse, which requires precise understanding of the legal nature, since the prescription period is completely different. Third, if the heir of the court is designated as beneficiary of the claim, and each heir is a beneficiary, it is reasonable that each heir acquires the claim according to the proportion of the inheritance. Fourth, it is reasonable to conclude that the limitation of the passenger's deliberation, which is the reason for the exemption in the Automobile Damages Guarantee Act, is limited to the act of consciously taking the decision of free passenger's decision. However, it is not appropriate that the intention that the intentions that are the reason for the exemption from personal insurance are distinguished from the meaning of the intentional intentions is called "due to the act being deliberately viewed as a whole". 이 글은 2017년도 보험법 분야의 판례들을 다루었다. 2017년도에도 다수의 보험법 판례가 나왔으며 그 중에는 중요한 판결들의 의으를 살펴보면 아래와 같다. 첫째, 사기죄의 기망행위를 고지의무 위반의 문제와 연관시키는 것에 대하여는 보다 검토가 필요하다. 고지의무제도가 보험소비자에게 지나치게 가혹하여 전반적인 개선의 과정에 있는 점 등 여러 제반 사정을 감안할 때, 고지의무위반에 대한 보증인적 지위의 부여와 그 부작위범의 동가치성이라는 논리 전개가 타당한 지 여부에 대한 심도 있는 논증이 필요하다. 둘째, 책임보험에서의 중복보험과 구상권에 관한 판결로 그 결론은 옳다. 그러나 공동불법행위자의 보험자인 甲이 다른 공동불법행위자의 보험자에 대하여 행사하는 구상권의 법리를 피해자 직접청구권으로 설명한 부분은 적절하지 않다. 그 보험자인 甲이 대위취득하는 권리는 손해배상청구권이 아니라 구상권이고, 이는 시효기간 등이 전혀 달라지기 때문에 법적 성질에 대한 정확한 이해가 필요하다. 셋째, 법정상속인이 보험금수익자로 지정되었고 그 상속인이 수인 있는 경우 상속인 각자가 그 상속분의 비율에 따라 보험금청구을 취득한다는 판결은 타당하다. 넷째, 자동차손해배상보장법상 면책사유인 승객의 고의를 승객의 자유로운 의사결정에 기하여 의식적으로 행한 행위에 한정된다고 한 판결은 타당하다. 다만 인보험에서의 면책사유인 고의를 “전체적으로 보아 고의로 평가되는 행위로 인한 것”이라 하면서 양자 고의의 의미가 구별된다는 취지의 판시는 적절치 않은 것으로 본다.

재보험계약에서의 운명추종과 채무확정추종

장덕조 한국상사법학회 2021 商事法硏究 Vol.39 No.4

Recently, disputes related to reinsurance are increasing, mainly due to the principle of following the fortunes (Follow the Settlement) and obligation to cooperate. In the event that the insured under the original insurance requests the payment of the insurance payment to the original insurer, the original insurer pays even though the reinsurer withholds the payment of the insurance payment to the original insurer and requests an investigation into whether it falls within the scope of the original insurance coverage. This article studies the legal relationship of reinsurance. Determination of the meaning of follow the settlement and follow the fortunes, whether it is accepted as a general rule of law in reinsurance transactions, examines the legal nature of liability insurance and reinsurance, and studies whether the regulation on the obligation to cooperate in liability insurance can be applied to reinsurance. The following is the conclusion. First, the meaning of follow the settlement and follow the fortunes is different, and follow the settlement has legal meaning. The reinsurer bears the responsibility of proving that the coverage of the original insurance is outside the scope of coverage only if there is a clause in the reinsurance contract, and the coverage of the original insurance is unclear. However, in order for the original insurer to claim reinsurance, if there is no provision for follow the settlement, the loss under the original insurance is a loss arising from a specified risk covered by the original insurance, that the payment amount of the original insurance is appropriate, and the loss thereof. It is also necessary to prove that this is also within the scope of reinsurance, and that the original insurer's damages and payments are "behaved in good faith and have taken all appropriate management measures necessary to determine the insurance debt. Second, it does not apply unless the relevant provisions are specified in the reinsurance contract, whether it is follow the settlement and follow the fortunes. Neither can be seen as a general rule of law established in reinsurance transactions. If the original insurer is out of the scope of coverage under the original insurance contract, if there is no provision for the relevant clause, even if it trusts in good faith for the liability for compensation, and no matter how reasonable the belief is, the determination of debt will not be applied. Third, reinsurance is an insurance of a completely different nature from liability insurance. Therefore, Article 726 of the Commercial Law, which applies to liability insurance regulations, should be deleted. As a comparative law, there is no legislative example that applies or applies the provisions of liability insurance to reinsurance as in our case, and rather, the provisions of the insurance contract law do not apply to reinsurance. In addition, many countries do not have reinsurance-related regulations and leave it to the party's autonomy. Fourth, even if reinsurance has the nature of some liability insurance, the provisions of Article 723 (3) regarding the Duty to cooperate with liability insurance are contrary to the nature of reinsurance and cannot be applied. In reinsurance in which party autonomy is strongly operated, the interpretation of the terms and conditions is of importance, and the text should be interpreted only with the relevant provisions in the reinsurance contract. 최근 재보험 관련 분쟁사안이 증가하고 있고, 이는 주로 운명추종(채무확정추종)과 협조의무 관련하여서이다. 원보험상의 피보험자가 원보험자에게 보험금지급을 청구한 경우, 재보험자가 원보험자에게 보험금지급을 보류하고 원보험상의 담보범위에 해당하는지 여부에 관하여 조사를 요구하였음에도 불구하고, 원보험자가 원보험금을 지급하고 재보험금을 청구하는 경우가 그것이다. 이 글은 재보험의 법률관계를 연구한다. 운명추종과 채무확정추종의 의미를 밝히고 그것이 재보험거래에서 일반적 법원칙으로 수용되었는지 여부, 책임보험과 재보험의 법적 성질을 따져보고, 책임보험상의 협조의무에 관한 규정을 재보험에 준용할 수 있는 것인지를 연구하였고, 다음이 결론이다. 첫째, 채무확정추종과 운명추종의 의미는 서로 다르고, 채무확정추종이 법적인 의의가 있다. 재보험계약서상 채무확정추종조항이 없다면, 원보험상의 손실이 원보험에 의하여 담보되는 특정된 위험으로부터 초래된 손실이라는 점, 원보험금의 지급금액이 적절하다는 점, 그 손실이 재보험의 담보범위 이내라는 점, 원보험자의 손해사정 및 지급행위가 ʻʻ성실하게 행동하고 보험채무확정에 필요한 모든 적절한 경영상의 조치를 취하였다ʼʼ는 선의라는 점 등에 대한 입증책임을 모두 원보험자가 부담한다. 둘째, 채무확정추종이든 운명추종이든 관련 조항을 재보험계약서에 명시하지 않는 한은 적용될 수 없다. 양자 모두 재보험거래에서 확립된 일반적 법원칙으로 볼 수 없다는 것이다. 채무확정추종조항이 없는 경우 원보험상 담보범위를 벗어났다면, 원보험자가 보상범위를 선의로 신뢰하였고 그 신뢰가 합리적이어도 재보험금을 받지 못한다. 셋째, 재보험은 책임보험과는 구별되는 전혀 다른 보험이다. 따라서 책임보험 규정을 준용하는 상법 제726조는 삭제되는 것이 옳다. 비교법적으로 우리와 같이 책임보험의 규정을 재보험에 준용 또는 적용하는 입법례는 찾아볼 수 없고, 오히려 보험계약법의 규정이 재보험에 적용되지 않는다는 규정을 둔다. 또한 다수의 국가는 당사자 자치에 맡긴다. 넷째, 설령 재보험이 일부 책임보험의 성질을 가진다 가정하더라도, 책임보험의 협조의무에 관한 제723조 제3항은 재보험의 성질에 반하는 것이어서 준용될 수 없다. 당사자 자치가 강하게 작동하는 재보험에서는 약관의 해석이 무엇보다도 중요하고, 그 계약서 내에서의 관련 규정들만으로 문언 해석하여야 한다.

타인을 위한 보험계약과 민법상 제3자를 위한 계약, 그리고 부당이득반환청구권

장덕조 법무부 2019 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.86

The legal nature of the insurance contract for a third party is regarded as a kind of contract for a third party under the civil law. In the insurance contract for a third party, if the insurer pays insurance benefits to the beneficiary of the insurance but it is determined that many insurance contracts are in question and it is invalid against the goodwill and other social order. The court denied the exercise of the claim in accordance with the existing precedent on the legal nature of the insurance contract for a third party. The holding of the High Court was based for three-way legal relation, which is the basic reasoning method of logic as follows. In the case of a contract for a third party under the Civil Code, the fallen party (the 'insurer' in the case of insurance contracts) can not exercise the right to demand a return of unfair benefit to a third party (the 'beneficiary' in case of insurance contract). An insurance contract for a third party is a contract for a third party under the Civil Code. <Conclusion> An insurer of an insurance contract for third party can not exercise the right to claim unfair advantage against the beneficiary. <Great Premise> and <Little Premise> are the positions of the existing precedents, and only the <Conclusion> has been drawn. However, the Supreme Court destroyed the verdict of High Court. This is because the insurer fulfills the "own debt", so that the insurer can exercise the right of returning the unfair advantage to the beneficiary. The conclusion seems plausible, but it is hard to agree with. This article argues that this is a misnomer. The insurance law has its own legal principle that is different from the general civil law principle, and understanding and interpretation is required. In judging the legal status of the beneficiary of the insurance, the commercial rules for insurance contracts for others should be fully examined. Insurance contracts for a third parth have a significantly different legal relationship with contracts for a third party under the Civil Code, and these points are fully illustrated in the Commercial Law Regulations. The position of the precedent of Korean Supreme Court on the legal nature of insurance contracts for a third party should be changed. Insurance contract for a third party is not a type of contract for a third party under the Civil Code. Both of them have so many differences that it is not easy to see them as homologous but similar. Also, the Commercial Act has detailed regulations on the legal relationship of insurance contract for a third party, so there is no need to grasp that. Also, the expression "own debt" is too abstract, and it seems that the difficulty of legal application in the future can not be avoided. In addition, it is difficult to apply the existing argument to the insurance contracts to dismiss the exercise of the claim for return of unfair advantage under the premises of bilateral relations in the contract for a third party under the Civil Code. 타인을 위한 보험계약의 법적 성질에 대하여 판례는 민법상 제3자를 위한 계약의 일종으로 본다. 타인을 위한 보험계약에서 보험자가 보험수익자에게 보험금을 지급하였으나, 다수의 보험계약 체결이 문제되어 그것이 선량한 풍속 기타 사회질서에 반하여 무효라고 판정난 후, 보험수익자에 대하여 부당이득반환청구권을 행사할 수 있는지 여부가 쟁점이 되었다. 원심은 타인을 위한 보험계약의 법적 성질에 대한 기존 판례에 따라 그 청구권행사를 부정하였다. 원심은 아래와 같이 논리학의 기본적인 추론 방식인 3단 논법에 의하여 판결을 내렸다. <대전제: 민법상 제3자를 위한 계약의 경우 낙약자(보험계약의 경우 ‘보험자’)는 제3자(보험계약의 경우 ‘보험수익자’)에 대하여 부당이득반환청구권을 행사할 수 없다>. <소전제: 타인을 위한 보험계약은 민법상 제3자를 위한 계약의 일종이다>. <결론: 타인을 위한 보험계약의 보험자는 보험수익자에 대하여 부당이득반환청구권을 행사할 수 없다>. <대전제>와 <소전제>는 기존 판례의 입장이고, 원심은 <결론>만 도출하였을 뿐이다. 그런데 대법원은 원심을 파기하였다. 위 <대전제>와 <소전제>의 입장을 변경한 것은 아니고, 보험자가 “자신의 고유한 채무”를 이행한 것이기 때문에 보험자는 보험수익자에 대하여 부당이득반환청구권을 행사할 수 있다는 것이다. 그 결론은 타당하다고 보나, 그에 이르는 법리에 대하여 동의하기 어렵다. 이 글은 위 <소전제>가 잘못된 것이라 보고, 이를 논증한다. 보험법은 일반 민사법 원리와는 구별되는 독자적 법원리를 가지고 있고, 그에 대한 이해와 해석이 요구된다. 보험수익자의 법적 지위를 판단함에 있어 타인을 위한 보험계약에 관한 상법 규정들을 충분히 검토하여야 한다. 타인을 위한 보험계약은 민법상 제3자를 위한 계약과는 상당히 다른 법률관계를 가지고 있으며, 이러한 점들이 상법 보험편 규정에 충분히 나타나 있다. 타인을 위한 보험계약의 법적 성질에 대한 판례의 입장이 변경되어야 한다. 양자는 그 차이점이 너무나 많아 동종이 아니라 유사한 것으로 보기도 쉽지 않다. 또한 상법은 타인을 위한 보험계약의 법률관계에 관한 상세한 규정을 두고 있어 그렇게 파악할 필요도 없다. 타인을 위한 보험계약의 법적 성질을 굳이 따져야 한다면, 제3자를 위한 계약의 일종이 아니라 상법상 특수한 계약이라고 파악함이 옳다. 또한 판시문의 “자신의 고유한 채무”라는 표현은 지나치게 추상적이어서, 향후 그 법적용시 어려움을 피할 수 없어 보인다. 그리고 기존 판례가 민법상 제3자를 위한 계약에서 3면의 쌍무관계를 전제하여 부당이득반환청구권의 행사를 부정하는 논거가, 보험계약 관계에 적용되기 어렵다.

2016년 보험법 중요 판례

장덕조 大韓辯護士協會 2017 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.464

이 글은 2016년도 중요 보험법 판례들을 엄선하여 연구한 것이다. 이 글의 본문에서는 (ⅰ) 재해사망보험금지급약관의 유효성,(ⅱ) 재해사망보험금지급과 소멸시효, (ⅲ) 손해방지의무, (ⅳ) 다수의 보험계약과 선량한 풍속 기타 사회질서, (ⅴ) 보험자대위권과 차액설, (ⅵ) 명시설명의무의 판결에 대하여 연구하고 분석한 것이다. This paper studied on the Korean Supreme Court’s judgements on Insurance Law in 2016. (ⅰ) the validith of the accidental death benefit clause for the case of suicide, (ⅱ) accidental death benefit clause for the case of suicide and the extinctive clause, (ⅲ) the duty to prevent or mitigate property damage, (ⅳ) the duty of disclosure and multiple personal accident insurances, (ⅴ) the insurer’s subrogation right against third party, (ⅵ) the explanation duty of an insurer as applied to insurance coverage disputes.

피해자 직접청구권과 피보험자 보험금청구권과의 관계 - 상법 제724조 제1항 해석에 관한 판례 법리의 비판 -

장덕조 한국상사법학회 2008 商事法硏究 Vol.26 No.4

Liability insurance premiums and the costs of liability have increased as a share of our national income. In these situations, a question can be raised whether some kinds of risks can come under insurable risk in liability insurance contract in a viewpoint of insurable interest. To answer this question, we need to enunciate the relationship between tort law and liability insurance. My focus has been to examine the effect that liability insurance has on the tort goals of achieving corrective justice, compensation or loss spreading as a free-standing goal of the tort system, and protecting third party. In this article I focus, the Korean Commercial Code §724 ①, third Party’s Claim against Insurer. In its original form, liability insurance was an agreement by an insurer to indemnify an insured against loss arising as a consequence of an insured’s tort liability to a third person. Thus, even though a tort judgment had been rendered against the insured, as a pratical matter the victim might be unable to realize anything from the insured’s insurance company. In this situation, the Korean Commercial Code §724 ① stipulates that a third party may claim against an insurer. This Code was set for the protection of victims. However, the Korean Supreme Court holds if the policy does not exist the victim’s right against the insurer, the insurer may pay the sum inured to insured without victim’s satisfaction. This article criticizes the construction of the Court. Liability insurance premiums and the costs of liability have increased as a share of our national income. In these situations, a question can be raised whether some kinds of risks can come under insurable risk in liability insurance contract in a viewpoint of insurable interest. To answer this question, we need to enunciate the relationship between tort law and liability insurance. My focus has been to examine the effect that liability insurance has on the tort goals of achieving corrective justice, compensation or loss spreading as a free-standing goal of the tort system, and protecting third party. In this article I focus, the Korean Commercial Code §724 ①, third Party’s Claim against Insurer. In its original form, liability insurance was an agreement by an insurer to indemnify an insured against loss arising as a consequence of an insured’s tort liability to a third person. Thus, even though a tort judgment had been rendered against the insured, as a pratical matter the victim might be unable to realize anything from the insured’s insurance company. In this situation, the Korean Commercial Code §724 ① stipulates that a third party may claim against an insurer. This Code was set for the protection of victims. However, the Korean Supreme Court holds if the policy does not exist the victim’s right against the insurer, the insurer may pay the sum inured to insured without victim’s satisfaction. This article criticizes the construction of the Court.

理事에 대한 補償制度 導入의 妥當性 考察

장덕조,유지혜 한국기업법학회 2005 企業法硏究 Vol.19 No.3

Indemnification provides financial protection by the corporation for its directors against exposure to expenses and liabilities that may be incurred by them in connection with legal proceedings based on an alleged breach of duty in their service to or on behalf of the corporation in United States. The objective of this study is to explore whether an adopting of indemnification needs in Korea by examining the systems of liability and indemnification for directors in use in United States. And this article bases on the provisions of the Model Business Corporation Act indemnification statute. Indemnification encourages capable individuals to serve as directors who are afraid of the risks and costs of litigation and innocent directors to resist unjust charges. And also it discourages groundless shareholder litigation. If permitted too broadly, however, indemnification may violate equally basic tenets of public policy. Indemnification is permitted only where it will further sound corporate policies and prohibited from protecting or encouraging wrongful or improper conduct. So the scope of indemnification provided by the law is limited. In effect, it would be difficult to justify indemnifying a director who has not met any of the standards of liability. Moreover, permissible indemnification is authorized as a matter of discretion, not as a matter of right. I am of opinion that if there are instances that a director bears a excessive financial burden of any ensuing litigation, it would be a problem originated from the range of liability, not indemnification. Also indemnification has the possibility of disregard for the purpose of liability legislation. An indiscreet adoption of indemnification without statutory basis will be causing a confusion of the existing provisions defining the liabilities of directors after all. Indemnification provides financial protection by the corporation for its directors against exposure to expenses and liabilities that may be incurred by them in connection with legal proceedings based on an alleged breach of duty in their service to or on behalf of the corporation in United States. The objective of this study is to explore whether an adopting of indemnification needs in Korea by examining the systems of liability and indemnification for directors in use in United States. And this article bases on the provisions of the Model Business Corporation Act indemnification statute. Indemnification encourages capable individuals to serve as directors who are afraid of the risks and costs of litigation and innocent directors to resist unjust charges. And also it discourages groundless shareholder litigation. If permitted too broadly, however, indemnification may violate equally basic tenets of public policy. Indemnification is permitted only where it will further sound corporate policies and prohibited from protecting or encouraging wrongful or improper conduct. So the scope of indemnification provided by the law is limited. In effect, it would be difficult to justify indemnifying a director who has not met any of the standards of liability. Moreover, permissible indemnification is authorized as a matter of discretion, not as a matter of right. I am of opinion that if there are instances that a director bears a excessive financial burden of any ensuing litigation, it would be a problem originated from the range of liability, not indemnification. Also indemnification has the possibility of disregard for the purpose of liability legislation. An indiscreet adoption of indemnification without statutory basis will be causing a confusion of the existing provisions defining the liabilities of directors after all.

會社의 營利性에 대한 批判的 考察

장덕조 한국상사법학회 2013 商事法硏究 Vol.32 No.2

The Korean Commercial Act Art. 169 says “The term company used in this Act means a corporation incorporated for the purpose of engaging in commercial activities and any other profit-making activities. Our dominant theory argues that ‘profit-making activities’ means not only engaging in commercial activities but also distributing the profits to the shareholders. This paper criticizes the theory and argues that the the term ‘profit-making’does not include distributing the profits to the shareholders. The major legal debate is about corporate social responsibility and it is whether corporate managers should consider not only shareholders in making their decisions but also other stakeholders affected by those decisions. Namely, underlying legal analysis on corporate social responsibility is a major debate about the nature of the corporation. It would be noticeable that stakeholder theory has become increasingly popular in the United States. This article addresses those questions by analysing the arguments supporting shareholder primacy theory and by assessing whether these arguments are strong enough and provide sufficient justification for the theory. The analysis is undertaken from a current legal interpretation perspective. By interpretation of the current Korean corporate law, directors do not have to serve to maximize shareholders’ wealth. Even more, unlike the United States law, the Korean law does not require directors to owe fiduciary duties to shareholders. Rather, shareholder primacy thesis seems to be contradictory to the concept of corporate entity and its limited liability. Overall, we cannot conclude that shareholder primacy thesis overrules stakeholder primacy by relying on a legal interpretation itself. This paper concludes that shareholder primacy is flawless and is not substantial enough to provide comprehensive and integrated fundamentals for issues around a corporation. Shareholder primacy theory does not guide a corporate law into the right pass.

告知義務違反의 要件에 관한 最近 判例의 硏究

장덕조 한국금융법학회 2012 金融法硏究 Vol.9 No.2

This paper is to study and analyze some important cases held by the Korean Supreme Court in the past three years. The issue which will be dealt with in this paper involves the duty of disclosure. The insureds of the cases did not answer questions fully on the other insurances. The Supreme Court construed the related matters, and this paper clarified the holding. The section 651 of Korean Commercial Code is based on utmost good faith, and it has been interpreted to mean that a insured is under a duty volunteer material information, and that the penalty for failing to do so is avoidance. It places an obligation on the insured to disclose every circumstance which would influence the judgement of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or determining whether he will take the risk. First, this paper debates the "material facts". It is very difficult to discern the substantial and the non-substantial. This paper also explorers some the related points with the material facts. Second, this paper tries to clarify the meaning of intention and gross negligence. It is now generally accepted good practice that insurers should ask insureds questions about any material facts they wish to know. Many countries recognizes and will refuse to allow an insurer to avoid a policy for non-disclosure where no question was asked. Under the current situation, this paper criticizes CaseⅠ. The reason is that it is difficulty to admit insured's violation of disclosure duty in caseⅠ. CaseⅠ does not seem to reflect the existing world wide approach and established practices and theories.