논문 : 적하보험에서 보험자의 적하보험약관 설명의무에 관한 연구

이제현 ( Je Hyun Lee ),최영훈 ( Young Hoon Choi ) 한국해운물류학회(구 한국해운학회) 2016 해운물류연구 Vol.32 No.1

적하보험증권에 명시된 준거법 문언은 준거법이 영국의 법과 관습을 의미하는지 또는 한국의 법을 의미하는지에 대한 법리적 충돌이 발생하였다. 이 문제에 관련하여 우리나라 대법원은 초기에는 영국의 법과 관습을 의미한다고 판결했고 그 이후에는 우리나라 약관규제법을 의미한다고 판결하였다. 우리나라 대법원(대법원 2001.7.27. 선고 99다55533)은 동일한 사안에 대해서 상반된 판결을 내렸다. 약관규제법을 준거법으로 판결한 대법원의 판례를 적하보험의 준거법조항, 적하보험증권에 명시된 준거법 문언, 보험자의 적하보험약관 설명의무, 적하보험증권에 명시된 협회선급약관, 상법과 약관규제법의 측면에서 법리적 타당성을 분석하였고 이러한 대법원의 법리적 해석은 타당하다고 본다. 대법원 판결의 시사점은 보험자중심에서 보험계약자 중심으로 법리적 해석이 바뀌고 있고, 보험자의 보험약관 설명의무를 요구하고 있으며 따라서 적하보험자는 이 점을 유의하여야 한다. The institute clauses including "Notwithstanding anything contained here in or attached hereto to the contrary, this insurance is understood and agreed to be subject to English law and practice only as to liability for and settlement of any and all claims" are regularly include in cargo insurance contract throughout the world. A difference of opinion can arise as to the interpretation of the effectiveness of the English law and practice clauses in cargo insurance policy, as the institute clauses containing restrictive wording such as "only as to liability for and settlement of any and all claims". Under English law and practice, an insurer does not have a duty to explain and disclose important cargo insurance clauses to the assured even if the assured must disclose to the insurer, before the contract in concluded, every material circumstance which is known to the assured, and the assured is deemed to know every circumstance which, in the ordinary cours of business, ought to be known by him. Under the Korean Act for the Regulation of General Clauses, the Korean Commercial Code, the insurer has a duty to explain and disclose such important cargo insurance clauses to the assured. The insurer must disclose to the assured the cargo insurance clauses which determine whether the insurer will pay the claim amount. Therefore if the governing law of cargo insurance contract is English law and practice, an insurer may explain and disclose such important cargo insurance clauses to the assured in utmost good faith. These important cargo insurance clauses may be validly incorporated into a cargo insurance contract even if an insurer did not provide such explanation and disclosure and the insurer does not indemnify the assured for losses covered under such clauses. By contrast if the governing law is the aforementioned Korean Act for the Regulation of General Clauses, an insurer must provide such explanation and disclosure. If the insurer fails to make such disclosure, the assured may cancel the cargo insurance contract within one month from the date of entering into contract. If English law and practice were considered to unconditionally apply to every legal matter in cargo insurance, there would be several legal problems its interpretation. The Court does not unconditionally apply English law and practice to every legal matter in cargo insurance, and limits the range of its application to the liability for and settlement of any and all claims. The Court`s interpretation is that the liability for and settlement of any and all claims is not the subject matter insured but is the establishment of a contract of a cargo insurance, that the institute classification clause is a special clause and the insurer must explain and disclose it. A contract of a cargo insurance is a contract whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured, in manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against marine losses, that is to say, the losses incident to marine adventure. The Korean Supreme Court`s decisions based on the Korean Act for the Regulation of General Clauses are reasonable. The insurer must explain and disclose these special clauses to the assured. These special clauses is material which would influence the judgement of a prudent assured recovering a loss or determining whether the insurer will count the claim amount.

위험증가와 통지의무에 관한 상법 규정의 법적 재검토

양석완 ( Seok Wan Yang ) 안암법학회 2011 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.36

The Insurer, as well as society at large, has an interest in risk management and loss prevention. Thus it suggests rules that encourage or at least allow some degree of intervention or control by the insurer over the conduct of the policyholder during as well as immediately before a period of insurance cover. Whatever the substance of a special rule for aggravation of risk, the aggravation that triggers it is usually defined. Some legislation speaks simply of a ``material`` increase but most national legislation goes further. A typical definition is an "increase … such that had the Insurer been aware of the fact or incident, it would not have concluded the insurance contract, or would not have concluded it under the same terms." The insurer is entitled to reconsider the insurance as and when the insurer becomes aware of aggravation of risk. If an aggravation occurs, the insurer is obliged within one month of becoming aware of it to propose an appropriate ``modification of the contract.`` If the policyholder acquires knowledge that the risk has been increased by a change made or permitted without the insurer`s approval, he must inform the insurer. The policyholder is required to notify the insurer ``without delay.`` The insurer whishes to reassess the ongoing risk as soon as possible but the policyholder may have difficulties in assessing the changed situation and in communicating with the insurer. Notification rules are mostly found in countries where cover is commonly contracted for periods longer than a year and where there is a relationship of trust and mutual commitment between insurer and policyholder. The policyholder is now required to report any changes which affect the accuracy or relevance of his answers to the questions posed by the insurer when the cover was contracted. The rule agreed provides that any policy term on aggravation of risk shall be without effect unless the aggravation of risk to which the term applies is (a) ``material`` and (b) ``specified in the contract of insurance.`` Aggravation is material, as it is in the rule of disclosure, if it is of a nature to have an influence on a reasonable insurer`s decision whether to enter into the contract at all, or whether to do so under the terms agreed.

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.

책임보험에서의 보험자의 지위- 의무책임보험의 관점에서 -

김은경 (사)한국보험법학회 2019 보험법연구 Vol.13 No.1

Liability insurance was born in the course of a person's liability for legal damages to third parties in the process of the civilization. As the principle of the strict responsibility and corporate liability develops, regardless of individual or corporation, the discussion about shifting individual responsibility to social responsibility through insurance system has expanded, when it is difficult for the subject of compensation liability to bear all responsibility. Liability insurance assumes the liability of the insured to be an insured interest. So, the insurer’s obligation to pay the claims not arise unless the liability is determined. The insurer of liability insurance plays an important role in determining the liability of the insured person, that is, the perpetrator, so it is essential to confirm the status of the insurer. The insurer of the liability insurance shall determine the insurance accident according to the obligation of care as a good manager, that is, the obligation to observe, and determine the extent of the damage. At this time, failure to find an important basis for determining an insurance accident or scope of loss, or failure to use appropriate methods of defense would negate the obligation of the state itself. Just as an insured person is obliged to defend the victim's groundless claim due to an insurance accident, the insurer is also obligated to defend. Under the German insurance contract law, which has a prerogative provision for the insurer's defense obligation, the insurer's defensive obligation is the basic obligation or primary obligation of liability insurance. However, the insurer's obligation to pay the insurer is closely linked to the interests of the perpetrator (the insured) and the injured party. Since the policyholder must defend against the claims of the third party (the injured party), the insurer's defense obligation has the character of defense. On the other hand, there is a conflict of interest between the insurer and the third party because the third party wants to receive his or her compensation first. In this case, the insurer fulfills its role as the successor to the policyholder who is the assailant in the status of the debtor with respect to the creditor as the policy contractor, According to this, the insurer has the grounds for exercising the defense rights of the perpetrator, who is the other party to the claims of the third party who is the injured party. In addition, the insurer's right of defense is also called the insurer's right to intervene. When an insurance accident occurs, not only the insured but also the insurer inspects the insurance accident. At this time, the insured right of the insured person is not only a right that has an obligation to be recognized on the liability side of the liability insurance but also permits based on the group identity of the insurance. 개인이 문명의 이기를 사용하는 과정에서 발생하는 제3자에 대한 법률상의 손해배상책임을 부담하는 문제에서 책임보험이 생겨났다. 이후 기업가인 가해자의 배상책임을 담보하는 것과 엄격책임의 발달에 따라 그것이 일반 개인이든 또는 기업가이든 스스로 그 책임을 모두 떠안기 어려운 상황으로 진전됨에 따라 해당 개인책임을 보험제도를 통하여 사회책임으로 전환하고자 하는 논의에서 책임보험은 발전되었다. 책임보험은 피보험자의 책임에 관한 피보험이익을 담보하는 것이므로 그 책임이 확정되지 아니하면 보험자의 보상의무 역시 생기지 아니한다. 피보험자인 가해자의 책임확정과정에서 보험자의 역할이 중요하므로 책임보험에서 보험자의 지위를 확인할 필요가 있다. 책임보험의 보험자는 선량한 관리자로서의 주의의무, 즉 선관의무에 따라 보험사고를 확정짓거나 손해범위를 정하여야 하는데, 그 중요한 근거를 찾아내지 못하였거나 적절한 방어방법을 적용하지 아니하면 그 자체로 주의의무를 게을리 한 것이 된다. 피보험자는 보험사고로 인하여 피해자의 근거없는 배상청구에 대하여 방어할 의무를 부담하는 방어의무를 부담하여야 하는 것과 마찬가지로 보험자 역시 제3자의 청구에 대하여 방어하여야 한다. 이러한 보험자의 방어의무에 대하여 명문의 규정을 가지고 있는 독일 보험계약법에서는 보험자의 방어의무를 책임보험에서의 기본의무 내지 주요의무라고 한다. 그런데 보험자의 급부의무를 담보하는 것에 관해서는 가해자와 피해자 사이의 이해관계가 동시에 작동하는 것이므로 보험자의 방어의무는 방어권으로서의 성질을 가지고 있다. 보험계약자 입장에서는 제3자의 청구에 대하여 방어를 해야 하는 것인 반면, 제3자의 입장에서는 자신의 손해배상을 우선적으로 받는 것에 이해가 상충하는 것이다. 이때 보험자는 보험계약관계상 보험계약자의 채무자로서의 지위에서 제3자에 대한 책임관계의 당사자인 보험계약자(내지 피보험자)의 권리승계자로서의 역할을 충실히 해야 한다. 이에 따르면 피해자인 제3자의 책임청구의 상대방인 가해자가 가지는 방어권을 행사할 수 있는 근거가 보험자에게 있는 것이다. 또한 보험자의 방어권은 소위 보험자의 개입권이라고도 볼 수 있다. 보험사고가 발생하면 피보험자뿐만 아니라 보험자도 보험사고를 조사하게 되데 이때에 인정되는 보험자의 개입권은 책임보험에서 신의칙상 인정되는 의무의 성질을 가진 권리라고 판단되고 보험의 단체성에 근거하여 허용되는 것이기도 하다. 그 외에도 보험자의 제3자에 대한 정보제출요구권은 올바른 손해액 산정이나 보험사기 방지를 위한 측면에서 필요한 부분이다.

보험계약에 있어서 위험의 변경·증가에 관한 법적 쟁점

양석완 한국상사법학회 2011 商事法硏究 Vol.30 No.2

The Insurer, as well as society at large, has an interest in risk management and loss prevention. Thus it suggests rules that encourage or at least allow some degree of intervention or control by the insurer over the conduct of the policyholder during as well as immediately before a period of insurance cover. Whatever the substance of a special rule for aggravation of risk, the aggravation that triggers it is usually defined. Some legislation speaks simply of a ‘material’ increase but most national legislation goes further. A typical definition is an “increase … such that had the Insurer been aware of the fact or incident, it would not have concluded the insurance contract, or would not have concluded it under the same terms.”The insurer is entitled to reconsider the insurance as and when the insurer becomes aware of aggravation of risk. If an aggravation occurs, the insurer is obliged within one month of becoming aware of it to propose an appropriate ‘modification of the contract.’If the policyholder acquires knowledge that the risk has been increased by a change made or permitted without the insurer's approval, he must inform the insurer. The policyholder is required to notify the insurer ‘without delay.’ The insurer whishes to reassess the ongoing risk as soon as possible but the policyholder may have difficulties in assessing the changed situation and in communicating with the insurer. Notification rules are mostly found in countries where cover is commonly contracted for periods longer than a year and where there is a relationship of trust and mutual commitment between insurer and policyholder. The policyholder is now required to report any changes which affect the accuracy or relevance of his answers to the questions posed by the insurer when the cover was contracted. The rule agreed provides that any policy term on aggravation of risk shall be without effect unless the aggravation of risk to which the term applies is (a) ‘material’ and (b) ‘specified in the contract of insurance.’ Aggravation is material, as it is in the rule of disclosure, if it is of a nature to have an influence on a reasonable insurer's decision whether to enter into the contract at all, or whether to do so under the terms agreed.

자동차 전손사고시 보험자의 잔존물 거래실태와 관련된 문제점 고찰 - 전손의 판단과 잔존물대위의 관점에서 -

조규성 한국금융법학회 2019 金融法硏究 Vol.16 No.2

자동차사고로 인한 전손사고 시 보험자는 원칙적으로 중고가격에 해당하는 교환가액 상당액을 피보험자(피해자)에게 지불하고 상법 제681조(잔존물대위)의 규정에 따라 법률상 당연히 잔존물에 대한 권리를 취득하게 된다. 보험자는 이렇게 취득한 잔존물을 잔존물(매매)업자에게 매각해서 잔존물가액을 환입하고있는데 이 경우 잔존물대위의 법리에 따른 소유권 취득 시 자동차관리법 상 자동차의 명의이전등록이 필요할 수 있으며, 만약 보험자가 이러한 절차 없이 자동차를 매매할 경우 자동차관리법 위반의 문제와 취‧등록세를 탈루하는 조세법 위반의 문제, 그밖에 전자상거래 등에서의 소비자 보호에 관한 법률위반, 상법위반 등의 문제가 발생하게 된다. 또한 보험자가자동차관리법에 부합되게 자동차관리사업자로 등록을 하고 손상 및 폐차대상 자동차의 매매및 알선행위를 한다고 할지라도 과연 보험자가 보험업과는 무관한 이러한 사업을 영위하는것이 보험업법 규정에 비추어 허용되는지 여부가 문제로 지적될 수 있다. 그 밖에도 전손차량의 폐차 또는 매각과 관련해 보험자가 자의적으로 전손에 해당하는지 여부를 일방적인 기준에 의해 판단함으로써 차주(車主)에게 손해를 끼친다는 점이 문제로 지적된다. 이와 같이 보험자가 잔존물대위에 따른 업무를 처리함에 있어 파생되는 문제점을 해결하기 위한 방안으로 보험자가 잔존물의 매각절차에 직접 개입하지 않고 차주와 잔존물(매매) 업자를 연결만 시켜주고(물론 차주나 잔존물업체로부터 매매·알선 수수료 등을 받지 않는조건), 전손보험금의 지급을 차주와 매매업자간에 차량의 명의이전이 완료된 후 잔존물금액을 공제한 나머지를 보험금(손해배상금)으로 지급하는 방식으로 업무를 처리할 것을 제안한다. 이 방식에 의할 경우 보험자는 잔존물에 대한 명의이전이 필요 없게 되어 잔존물(자동차)에 대한 소유권을 취득하지 않아도 되므로 자동차관리법 상 매매업자로 등록을 할 필요가 없어지고, 손해사정이론상으로도 보험자는 보험금액에서 잔존물의 가치를 공제한 차액을보험금으로 지급함으로써 굳이 잔존물대위의 법리를 통하지 않고서도 업무처리를 신속하게진행할 수 있다는 장점이 있다. 물론 개선된 업무처리 방안에 의하더라도 문제점이 전혀 없어지는 것은 아니지만 본 논문은 보험자의 잔존물처리 관행에 대한 문제점들을 정리·검토하고, 이를 바탕으로 현행 보험법 체계 하에서 잔존물 대위의 적용 요건(전손의 판단기준 포함)과 근거에 대해 어떻게 이해하고 적용해야 하는지에 대한 고찰을 통해 필자 나름의 개선안을 제시하고자 하였다. 보다 거시적이고 근본적인 관점에서의 연구와 더 발전된 개선(해결)방안에 대해서는 향후 검토 과제로 남겨두고자 한다. According to Article 681 of the Commercial Act, if the subject matter insured is totally destroyed, an insurer which has paid the whole insured amount shall acquire the rights of the insured to the subject matter. In the claim adjust’s affairs caused by car accident, there are many problems that regarding the judgment of a total loss and the application of subrogation by insurer concerning subject matter of insured. The first is that for the remnants of an automobile accident, the insurer is too arbitrary to judge whether it is a total loss or not. Next, if an insurer undertakes the work in accordance with the provision of the Commercial Act(subrogation by insurer concerning subject matter of insured), there are many problems of breaking the law. A major problem is the violation of the Motor Vehicle Management Act and the Insurance Business Act. Due to subrogation by insurer concerning the subject matter insured, the insurer naturally acquires all rights of insured regarding the subject matter insured, and acquired rights are not limited to the ownership on the remnants. But, if the insurer intends to sell the remnants, according to the provision of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, the insurer has to take the procedure of transferring ownership of the remnants. In addition, an insurer must register as motor vehiclemanagement business(including ‘motor vehicle transaction business’ and ‘motor vehicle scrapping and recycling business’) under the Motor Vehicle Management Act. The problem is that insurer cannot do such business under the Insurance Business Act. As such, it can be seen that there are many problems with the current insurer's remnants treatment practices. In this study, I point out these problems, I wanted to describe my own improvement plan. Considerations from a more macro perspective will be left as a future review task.

현행 신중한 보험자(prudent insurer) 기준에 대한 批判的 再考 : 영국 보험법의 해석을 중심으로

박세민 한국보험학회 2004 保險學會誌 Vol.68 No.-

고지의무의 해석에 있어서 무엇을 기준으로 하여 중요성 여부를 판단할 것인가의 문제는 고지의무의 범위를 결정하는 중요한 요소가 된다. 현행 영국 해상보헝법 제18조에서는 '신중한 보험자'(prudent insurer)가 그 기준으로 제시되고 있고, 영국의 각급 법원도 이를 기준으로 삼고 있다. 그러나 현행 '신중한 보험자' 기준은 보험계약자에게 지나치게 불리하며 고지의무 제도의 본래 목적인 최대선외의 원칙에도 부합하지 않는다는 비판이 제기되고 있다. 그 이유는 어느 사실이 신중한 보험자에 의해 중요한 사실로 간주될 것인가를 보험계약자가 미리 예측한다는 것은 실제로 거의 불가능하기 때문이다. 또한 '신중한 보험자' 기준은 소송에 있어서 전문가 증언(expert evidence)제도를 필요로 하는데 실무상 이 제도의 혜택을 누리는 것은 보험자측이기 때문이다. 1994년 영국 귀족원은 '당해보험자'(actual insurer)를 기준으로 한 유인요소(element of inducement)를 승인하였는데 법이론적으로 그 인정에 정당성이 있는 것으로 해석된다. 그러나 이 기준은 영국 귀족원이 중요성 판단에 대하여 소위 '비결정적영향론'(anti-decisive influence test)을 채택한 이래 제기되는 많은 비판을 의식하여 의도적으로 승인한 것이며, 정확하게 말하면 중요성판단의 기준이라기보다는 重要性과 구별되는 개념인 誘引性에 대한 기준인 셈이다. 이러한 상황에서 현행 '신중한 보험자'기준의 대안으로 제시할 수 있는 것은 '신중한 보험계약자'(prudent insured) 기준이다. 이 기준에 의하면 보험계약자는 합리적인 주의력을 가지고 고지의무를 이행하는 것으로 충분하며, 신중한 보험자가 무엇을 중요한 것으로 여길 것인가를 미리 예측해야 하는 능력은 요구되지 않는다. 따라서 '신중한 보험계약자' 기준에 의하면 고지의무의 범위를 합리적으로 제한할 수 있으며, 입증책임의 문제도 보다 효과적으로 해결할 수 있다고 해석되어 궁극적으로 보험계약자를 적절히 보호하고 최대선의의 원칙에도 부합할 수 있다고 판단된다. The question of "What should be a criterion for determining the materiality of information?" is a crucial element of deciding the range of the duty of disclosure in insurance contract law. Although s. 18(2) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 clearly refer to 'a prudent insurer test', it is worth analyzing the other tests because this has met with a lot of criticism and the requirement for reform of the current test is increasing. It is apparent that the test of prudent insurer imposes too heavy a burden on the insured. According to this test, it may not be sufficient for the insured to disclose every fact that the actual insurer would wish to know about before accepting the risk. In other words, clairvoyant powers to discover what a prudent insurer would regard as material are required to the insured. Furthermore, the insurer can be more protected by the practice of accepting expert evidence. In 1994, the House of Lords required the element of inducement based on the actual insurer test in the duty of disclosure. However, it is submitted that the element of inducement was intentionally accepted by the House of Lords in order to alleviate a lot of criticism caused by the anti-decisive influence test in relation to the degree of influence of undisclosed facts. In addition, inducement and materiality are wholly separate and distinct concepts. In other words, materiality is a requirement which is not dependent on the element of inducement. Under this circumstance, the prudent insured test can be provided as a substitute. The most important role of the prudent insured test is to make it possible to reduce the scope of the duty of disclosure. Also this test seems to offer a more effective way to solve the question of proof. It is because under this test it seems to be sufficient for an insured to undertake his duty with reasonable care and skill, and no extra skill to predict what a prudent insurer would think as material is imposed upon the insured. Therefore, the insured can be properly protected and it is thought that this test can correspond to the principle of utmost good faith in insurance contract law.

보험자의 보유정보로 인한 해지권 행사 제한에 관한 연구

김성진 ( Sung Jin Kim ) 한국상사판례학회 2014 상사판례연구 Vol.27 No.3

According to the article 651 of the Korean Commerce Act, if the policyholder or the insured fails to disclose or not to misrepresent material facts at the time of making the insurance contract, the insurer may terminate the contract. However, insurer shall not terminate the insurance contract due to breach of duty of disclosure where at the time of making the insurance contract the insurer knew the nondisclosure or misrepresentation or by gross negligence failed to do so. The Supreme Court of Korea(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da20451 Decided Dec. 8, 2011) ruled that the insurer shall not terminate the insurance contract due to breach of duty of disclosure because, at the time of making the life insurance contract, the insurance company could easily see insured``s auto insurance history by looking up the status of policyholders`` insurance through its computer network. It will be still debatable in future whether the insurer``s right to terminate contract due to breach of duty of disclosure shall be restricted when the insurer already hold important information about the policyholder or the insured on electronic storage media or the document at the time of making the insurance contract. Thus, this article focused on this issue to solve the problem presented. In detail, chapter 2 overviews the breach of duty of disclosure in Korea, and the Supreme Court``s cases regarding restriction on insurer``s termination right because of its malice or gross negligence. Chapter 3 firstly addresses insurer``s termination right due to breach of duty of disclosure under the U.S. insurance law, and then discusses the restriction on insurer``s termination right because of insurer``s holding information under the U.S. case law. Chapter 4 addresses the theory of constructive knowledge in England, and existence of possibility to recall the information and the presence of motive to recall the information in Germany. Lastly, chapter 5, as a conclusion, reviews the implications from case laws of Korea, U.S., and European countries through comparative legal studies, and proposes that the insurer``s right to terminate contract due to breach of duty of disclosure shall be restricted when the insurer already hold important information about the policyholder or the insured on electronic storage media or the document especially in this modern times.

保險設計士의 保險者 代理權 存否에 관한 硏究 - 告知受領權을 중심으로 -

최진이 한국상사판례학회 2008 상사판례연구 Vol.21 No.2

This paper studies on the Legal Issues on the Limit of Insurance Salesmen's Rights under the Insurance Regulation Law. The Insurance Salesmen make a contract with insurer and work to insurer’s business. As it were, they canvass for insurance commodities to the general public and invite to insured for the insurer. Therefore, on all of occasions the general public who will make contract with insurer have an interview with an insurance salesmen, and People make contract through the mediation of an insurance salesmen. That is in a general way. But they don't have any rights about an insurance contract, as it were, three rights. Those are rights of the contract, rights of the receipt of disclosure, rights of the receipt of insurance premium. Particularly, one of the three rights the most problem is rights of the receipt of disclosure. In the case of contract of insurance insured have to give the insurer notice about important things for the contract. That is disclosure and representation duty of insured. If they don't carry out this duty, the insurer can cancel the contract any time, and the insurer need not pay the insurance money to insured by the contract. In this case, the insured should be inflicted a loss. Therefore, this paper suggest a partial amendment of insurance salesmen system in the Insurance Regulation Law. This paper studies on the Legal Issues on the Limit of Insurance Salesmen's Rights under the Insurance Regulation Law. The Insurance Salesmen make a contract with insurer and work to insurer’s business. As it were, they canvass for insurance commodities to the general public and invite to insured for the insurer. Therefore, on all of occasions the general public who will make contract with insurer have an interview with an insurance salesmen, and People make contract through the mediation of an insurance salesmen. That is in a general way. But they don't have any rights about an insurance contract, as it were, three rights. Those are rights of the contract, rights of the receipt of disclosure, rights of the receipt of insurance premium. Particularly, one of the three rights the most problem is rights of the receipt of disclosure. In the case of contract of insurance insured have to give the insurer notice about important things for the contract. That is disclosure and representation duty of insured. If they don't carry out this duty, the insurer can cancel the contract any time, and the insurer need not pay the insurance money to insured by the contract. In this case, the insured should be inflicted a loss. Therefore, this paper suggest a partial amendment of insurance salesmen system in the Insurance Regulation Law.

연구논문 : 제3자에 대한 보험자대위에서 손해배상청구의 범위

조현진 ( Hyun Jin Cho ) 한국상사판례학회 2015 상사판례연구 Vol.28 No.2

보험이란 다수의 위험을 하나의 위험집단으로 관리하여 우연한 사고가 발생하는 경우에 피보험자의 경제적 손실을 전보해주는 제도이다. 이러한 사고에 제3자의 책임있는 사유가 개입하는 경우에 피보험자는 보험자에 대한 보험금 지급청구권과 제3자에 대한 손해배상청구권을 갖게 된다. 피보험자가 양자를 모두 행사하는 경우에 피보험자는 사고 발생전보다 오히려 이득을 얻을 수 있게 되는데 이는 보험의 도박화 우려를 낳는다. 한편, 만약 피보험자가 제3자에 대한 손해배상청구권을 포기한다면 사고발생에 책임이 있는 제3자를 면책시키는 결과가 된다. 이는 모두 공평타당한 손해의 분담이라는 법적 정의에 부합하지 않는 것이 되어 법은 보험자의 보험금액 지급 시 피보험자의 제3자에 대한 청구권을 대위하여 행사할 수 있는 것으로 하고 있다. 제3자에 대한 보험자대위 청구권은 피보험자의 이중이득방지, 보험의 도박화 방지, 제3자의 면책 방지 등을 그 이론적 근거로 하고 있으며, 법적 성질은 민법상 배상자대위와 같은 것으로 보고 있다. 제3자에 대한 보험자대위의 요건은 제3자의 행위로 인한 보험사고의 발생과 보험자의 보험금지급이 있으면 충족된다. 제3자에 대한 보험자대위의 효과는 피보험자의 제3자에 대한 권리의 이전이다. 그런데 보험금이 일부지급된 경우와 일부보험의 경우에 대한 제한이 있다. 보험금이 일부지급된 경우에는 보험자는 피보험자의 권리를 해하지 않는 범위 내에서만 권리를 행사할 수 있고, 일부보험의 경우에는 규정이 없어 견해가 나뉘고 있으나 피보험자의 보호를 위하여 역시 피보험자의 권리를 해하지 않는 범위에서 보험자가 그 권리를 행사할 수 있다고 할 것이다. 보험금액이 전부 지급 되었으나 여전히 피보험자에게 손해가 남아있는 경우에 학설은 대체로 피보험자의 권리를 해하지 않는 범위에서 보험자가 그 권리를 행사할 수 있다고 하였으나, 판례는 그 동안 피보험자의 손해배상액을 산정하는 데 있어서 지급받은 보험금을 공제함으로써 결과적으로 그 범위에서 보험자의 대위를 인정하는 입장이었다. 이에 대하여 최근 대법원 전원합의체 판결은 피보험자의 손해배상액을 산정하는 데 있어서 과실상계 등에 의하여 제한된 그의 손해배상책임액에서 보험금을 공제하는 것은 피보험자가 손해보험금을 지급받은 경우의 손해배상청구의 범위에 관한 법리를 오해한 것이라고 판시하여, 결과적으로 보험금 전부를 지급받고도 손해가 남는 경우에 있어서 제3자에 대한 손해배상청구시 피보험자의 권리를 우선시하였다. 위 전원합의체 판결은 보험자는 보험료를 산정함에 있어서 당연히 이러한 위험을 계산한 것이라는 점과 피보험자는 우연한 사고에 대비하여 보험료를 지급하고 보험제도를 이용한다는 점, 위의 결론에 의하더라도 피보험자의 이중이득방지, 보험의 도박화 방지, 제3자의 면책 방지 등 보험자대위의 근거는 전혀 훼손되지 않는다는 점 등에 비추어 아주 타당한 판결이라고 할 것이다. Insurance is to protect an insured who pays premium to an insurer who manages a pool which consists of insureds with the same risks. Subrogation is the right of the insurer to be put in the position of the insured in order to pursue recovery from third parties legally resposible to the insured for a loss paid by the insurer. It is to prohibit the insured from getting interest more than whole loss, to prohibit insurance from being a game of chance, and to prohibit the third party from being indemnified, Subrogation requires an insured accident, a third party`s liability, and sum insured paid. The insurer has a right to substitute the insured`s right to the third party for the loss. Korean Commercial Act restricts the insurer`s right to the amount of what it pays to the insured where it pays less than the sum insured. It, however, keeps silence how to allocate the loss if there is under insurance. There are three opinions how to handle it, i.e. first priority to the insured, first priority to the insurer, recovery prorated between the insured and the insurer. It also keeps silence how to allocate the loss where the insured does not recover his/her whole loss even though he/she is paid the sum insured, and in the case of the third party`s insolvency or comparative negligence. It is possible to share the burden like the case of under insurance above. The author support the opinion which gives priority to the insured. Where either the insurer or the insured must to some extent go unpaid, the loss should be borne by the insurer for that is a risk the insured has paid it to assume. The insurer would still have had to bear the loss up to the full amount of the insurance policy because the accident is already considered when the insurer calculate the premium. The insured is sill entitled only to be made whole, not more than whole because he/she is allowed to reimburse to the extent of his/her loss. Recently, an en banc hearing of the Korean Supreme Court held the insured had a right to reimburse to the extent of his/her loss to made whole, which changed its position. The author support the decision which is quite appropriate to make equal between the insured, insurer, and the third party.