편의치적선에 대한 해운선진국의 대응정책과 최근의 국제규제동향

신건훈 한국무역상무학회 1994 貿易商務硏究 Vol.7 No.-

전자상거래 보험의 쟁점에 관한 고찰

신건훈 한국무역학회 2005 무역학자 전국대회 발표논문집 Vol.2005 No.8

영국 보험법 상 보험자가 부담하는 (최대)선의의무의 적용범위에 관한 연구-2015년 보험법의 영향을 중심으로

신건훈,주세환 한국무역상무학회 2019 貿易商務硏究 Vol.84 No.-

It is commonly recognised in English insurance law that the duty of utmost good faith is reciprocal and the duty of the parties do not come to an end even after an insurance contract is concluded. It is true that the duty is less exacting after the conclusion of contract. This article in intended to analyze the scope of insurer’s duty on good faith and the impacts of the Insurance Act 2015 on the scope. The results are as followings. First, English court, by drawing an analogy with the assured’s pre-contractual duty of good faith, needed to engage in judicial lawmaking in order to define the degree of materiality required to define the standard of the assured’s pre-contractual duty of good faith. It is difficult to acknowledge the reason that such an standard, adopted by existing case law, would be removed since the enactment of the Insurance Act 2015. Secondly, it is true that the duty of good faith is less exacting after the conclusion of contract, but it is needed to act more positively to observe the duty of good faith in specific instances at the post-contractual stage. Therefore, insurer in required to act in good faith in investigating, handling and settling claims, and the defence against the third party under libility insurance. Finally, it is possible to argue that there is no room for any separate concept of utmost good faith to be adopted for the interpretation of insurance contract, since the concept of food faith has recently been adopted for the interpretation of general commercial contracts in recent cases. 영국 보험법 상 최대선의의무는 보험계약의 근간을 제공하는 것으로서, 상호성 및 지속성을 갖는 의무이다. 2015년 보험법 상 보험계약자가 부담하는 최대선의의무에 관한 법원칙은 상당히 명확하게 규정된 반면, 상호적인 성격을 갖는 의무로서 보험자가 부담하는 최대선의의무에 관한 법원칙은 여전히 불확실한 상태로 남게 되었다. 따라서 이 논문은 보험자가 부담하는 최대선의의무의 적용범위 및 2015년 보험법의 영향을 분석하는데 그 목적을 두고 있다.

전자상거래 보험의 시장현황 및 쟁점에 관한 고찰

신건훈 한국통상정보학회 2005 통상정보연구 Vol.7 No.3

영국 보험법 상 손해방지의무에 관한 연구

신건훈,이병문 한국무역상무학회 2018 貿易商務硏究 Vol.80 No.-

In the excitement which attends a loss covered by the insurer, the assured should seek to act as if he was uninsured and take those steps to avoid the loss or lessen its harmful effect. The position of English insurance law is not clear on the nature and extent of duty to avert or minimize the insured loss, and, therefore, this study is designed to examine the nature and extent of the duty. The result of analysis are as followings. First, it is well established that the duty to mitigate is not an any sense an obligation, contractual or otherwise, and it is condition attached to the right to claim total damages. Secondly, the duty arises when peril is at any rate imminent. The duty does not arise until a peril as at any rate imminent and it is duty that arises in response to a casualty, actual or imminent. In order that the duty should cease to apply, it is necessary for the subject-matter insured to be no longer threatened by perils for which the assured are responsible. Thirdly, the question may arise of the degree of likelihood of loss by a covered peril. In this regards, English courts held that a stringent test of likehood of covered loss was in principle inappropriate and it sufficed that there was a risk of an insured loss materializing. Fourthly, there is a duty to mitigate insured loss in both marin and non-marine insurance, but the degree is so different. The assured is better favoured by the rule of marine insurance than by its non-marine insurance. Finally, the test of reasonableness relating to the duty seems to be an objective one. The test is not strict one, which should be assessed by reference to the conduct that might reasonably be expected of a person of normal competence in the circumstances of the peril that occurred.

영국계 P & I 클럽의 설립배경에 관한 사적 고찰

신건훈 한국무역상무학회 2007 貿易商務硏究 Vol.34 No.-

The traditional name given to the insurance of third party liabilities and certain contractual liabilities which arise in connection with the operation of ships is protection and indemnity(P & I) insurance. P & I insurance is very different from traditional hull and machinery insurance in that shipowners' hull and machinery insurance is designed primarily to protect the assured against losses to his vessel, whereas P & I insurance seeks to indemnify an shipowner in respect of the discharge of legal liabilities he has incurred in operating his own vessels. This study is to examine the background of establishment of British P & I clubs and, therefore, the identity of P & I insurance. The present British P & I clubs are the remote descendants of the many small and local hull mutual insurance clubs that were formed by British shipowners in the end of 18th century. At that time, British shipowners were dissatified with the state of marine insurance market and, therefore, established clubs together in mutual hull insurance clubs. After the removal of the company monopoly in 1824, greater competition had a good effect on the rates, terms of cover and service offered by the commercial marine insurance market and by Lloyd's underwriters, and the hull clubs became less necessary and went into decline. The burden of British shipowners on liabilities to third parties was steadily increased after the middle of the 19th century, but the amount insured under hull policy was limited in the insured value of the ship. Eventually, the first protection club, that is, the Shipowners' Mutual Protection Society was formed in 1855. It was designed to like past mutual hull clubs, but to cover liabilities for loss of life and personal injury and also the collision risks excluded from the current marine policies, particularly the excess above the limits in hull policies. In 1870, the risks of liability for loss of or damage to cargo carried on board the insured ship was first awarded by the British shipowners. After 1874, many protection clubs formed indemnity club to cover the risk of liability for loss or damage to cargo. As mentioned above, British P & I clubs have been steadily changed according to the response of shipowners under the rapidly changing law of British shipowners' liability, and so on in the future. 선박운항 상 고위험고이윤 구조를 가진 외항선이 주로 가입한 잉글랜드 남부의 Protection 클럽은 1870년 이전에도 포괄적으로 배상위험을 담보하였으나, 선박운항 상 저위험저이윤 구조를 가진 석탄선이 주로 가입한 잉글랜드 동북부 뉴우캐슬의 클럽은 선주의 경제적인 사정 상 보험료를 낮은 수준으로 유지해야 했기 때문에 배상위험을 전혀 담보하지 않았거나 일부만을 담보하고 있었던 것으로 유추된다.攀 상게서, pp.66-67.攀攀 따라서 Westenhope호 사건이 발생한 1870년 당시 동 선박이 가입되어 있던 뉴우캐슬의 Protection 클럽(즉 North of England Club)도 당연히 당해 사건처럼 이로라는 운송계약의 위반 후에 발생한 적하의 손해에 대한 선주의 불법행위책임에 대해서는 담보를 제공하지 않는 상태였다. 이러한 상황에서 뉴우캐슬의 선주는 화주에 대한 화물손해배상책임에 대응하기 위하여 기존의 Protection 클럽으로 하여금 일체의 배상위험을 포괄적으로 담보하는 방법을 고려하였을 것이다. 그러나 뉴우캐슬의 선주는 남부의 클럽처럼 뉴우캐슬의 Protection 클럽이 보호위험과 배상위험을 포괄적으로 담보하게 되면, 이에 대한 보험료는 비례적으로 상승하기 때문에 뉴우캐슬의 선주의 실정에는 맞지 않다는 사실을 인식하였다. 결국 뉴우캐슬의 선주들은 보호위험만을 담보하는 클럽(Protection 클럽)과 배상위험만을 담보하는 클럽(Indemnity클럽)을 분리하여 별도로 설립운용함으로써, 개별 선주의 선택에 따라서 그것의 일방 또는 쌍방에 가입할 수 있는 형태의 P & I 클럽으로서 The Steamship Owners' Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association이 1874년 뉴우캐슬에서 최초로 설립되었다.

유류오염손해(油類汚染損害)에 대한 선주(船主)의 책임(責任) 및 보험.보상제도(保險.補償制度)에 관한 고찰(考察)

신건훈,Shin, Gun-Hoon 한국무역상무학회 1995 貿易商務硏究 Vol.8 No.-

영국 해상보험법의 주요 개혁동향 : 보험자의 계약체결 후 최대선의의무를 중심으로

신건훈 한국무역보험학회 2011 무역금융보험연구 Vol.12 No.3

영국 법률위원회(Law Commission)는 현행 영국 보험법 상 보험자의 보험금지급의무 및 선의의무에 관한 법원칙이 보험자에 지나치게 유리하게 편중되어 있다고 판단한다. 법률위원회는 관련 보험법원칙 상 비형평성 및 불공정성을 제거함으로써 영국 보험법 및 보험업계에 대한 신뢰를 제고하려는 노력의 일환으로 최근 관련 법률의 개혁안에 관한 쟁점보고서를 발표하였다. 따라서 본고는 기존의 문헌 및 법률위원회의 개혁권고안을 중심으로 관련 보험법원칙의 문제점 및 주요 비판내용을 검토한 후, 개혁권고안의 내용, 의미 및 개혁의 기대효과를 검토하는데 그 목적을 두고 있다.

영국 해상보험법에서 최대선의원칙의 문제점에 관한 고찰

신건훈 한국무역상무학회 2000 貿易商務硏究 Vol.14 No.-

海上貨物運送狀의 有用性과 問題點에 관한 考察

辛建勳 성균관대학교 무역대학원 1993 무역논집 Vol.11 No.-