http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 고택근 (검색결과 6 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
고택근 경희대학교 법학연구소 2008 경희법학 Vol.43 No.1
French insurance law draws a distinction between the intention (faute intentionelle) to commit a wilful act and the intention (malevolence) deliberately to harm a person. The concept of “wilful act” has a slightly different shade of meaning from that of intention. As such, a wilful act generally exempts the insurer from liability. However, a wilful act is excused where it is committed by the person for whom he is responsible and furthermore the insurer is prevented from bringing an action of subrogation except the intention of harm the assured. In the case a wilful act, the question of what is the grounds the exemption of indemnity to declare of the concept of intention arises. On the grounds of moral sense, to preclude the assured from recovering, the insurer must prove that it was committed by the insured with the intention of receiving the benefit. However, since mere intention to commit a wilful act is sufficient to breach of the contingency, it is simply identified to declare the concept of the wilful act as a mere intention to commit wilful act. To make a definite decision, the intention may be defined as a mere intention to commit wilful act on the grounds of the contingency. It seems to be logical to interpret the action of subrogation on the grounds of moral except a wilful act. If the intention is defined as a mere intention to commit wilful act, the insurer is not liable for more cases. it is necessarily required the system for the third party to relieved them. it is a material element to be taken into consideration when we adopt it into our system. It is the merit of the interpretation that the grounds of the exemption is not good faith(or moral) but contingency which needs to be introduced into our law system as that of french does. French insurance law draws a distinction between the intention (faute intentionelle) to commit a wilful act and the intention (malevolence) deliberately to harm a person. The concept of “wilful act” has a slightly different shade of meaning from that of intention. As such, a wilful act generally exempts the insurer from liability. However, a wilful act is excused where it is committed by the person for whom he is responsible and furthermore the insurer is prevented from bringing an action of subrogation except the intention of harm the assured. In the case a wilful act, the question of what is the grounds the exemption of indemnity to declare of the concept of intention arises. On the grounds of moral sense, to preclude the assured from recovering, the insurer must prove that it was committed by the insured with the intention of receiving the benefit. However, since mere intention to commit a wilful act is sufficient to breach of the contingency, it is simply identified to declare the concept of the wilful act as a mere intention to commit wilful act. To make a definite decision, the intention may be defined as a mere intention to commit wilful act on the grounds of the contingency. It seems to be logical to interpret the action of subrogation on the grounds of moral except a wilful act. If the intention is defined as a mere intention to commit wilful act, the insurer is not liable for more cases. it is necessarily required the system for the third party to relieved them. it is a material element to be taken into consideration when we adopt it into our system. It is the merit of the interpretation that the grounds of the exemption is not good faith(or moral) but contingency which needs to be introduced into our law system as that of french does.
-
-
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
