
http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
전한덕 연세법학회 2022 연세법학 Vol.39 No.-
The current commercial law does not have specific contents related to the effect of manifestation of intention to designate and change the insurance beneficiary and only have the obligation of the policyholder to notify as a countermeasure against the insurer. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the right of insurance contractors to change the beneficiary is the Gestaltungsrecht(right to change the legal relationship) and that it is effective by unilateral manifestation of intention that does not need to reach the other party. However, in this case, it can hurt the legal stability and the safety of the transaction and unfair damage to the former beneficiary or the insurer. Recently, the National Assembly proposed an amendment to the Commercial Act that would allow the policyholder to make an effect when the notice of the policyholder reaches the insurer if the policyholder designates or changes the beneficiary of the insurance(Article 734). The amendment was initiated to reduce the possibility of legal disputes in relation to the existence of policyholder’s manifestation of intention and the time of the effective occurrence, and to improve the stability of the legal relationship by clarifying the time of the effectiveness of designation and change of the policyholder. However, if the effect is recognized at the time of the arrival of manifestation of intention, there is still a lot of legal dispute. In addition, disputes may arise between interested parties such as the policyholder, heirs and the insurer about the reach of the manifestation of intention. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare more sophisticated legislation such as limiting the method of manifestation of intention in writing and retroactively applying the timing of the effect of the expression of intention to the time of notification. In addition, it is necessary to discuss and review in depth whether to allow the designation and change of insurance beneficiary by will. 현행 상법에서는 보험수익자 지정・변경의 의사표시의 효력과 관련하여 구체적인 내용이 없고, 보험자에 대한 대항요건으로 보험계약자의 통지의무만을 규정하고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 최근 대법원 판결은 보험계약자의 보험수익자 변경권은 형성권이고, 상대방에게 도달할 필요가 없는 일방적 의사표시에 의해서 효력이 발생한다고 판시하였다. 그러나 이 경우 법적 안정성과 거래의 안전을 해치고 변경전 보험수익자나 보험자에게 부당한 피해를 줄 수 있다. 최근 국회에서는 보험계약자가 보험수익자를 지정・변경하는 경우 보험계약자의 통지가 보험자에게 도달하였을 때 그 효력이 발생하도록 하는 상법 개정안이 발의되었다(안 제734조). 동 개정안은 보험계약자의 의사표시의 존재 여부 및 효력발생시점과 관련하여서는 법적 분쟁이 발생할 소지를 줄이고, 보험수익자 지정・변경행위의 효력발생시점을 명확히 하여 법률관계의 안정성을 제고하기 위한 목적에서 발의되었다. 그러나 의사표시의 도달시점에 그 효력을 인정할 경우 여전히 법적 분쟁의 소지가 다분하다. 또한 의사표시의 도달 여부를 놓고도 보험계약자 또는 상속인 등의 이해관계자들과 보험자 간에 분쟁이 발생할 수 있다. 따라서 의사표시의 방식을 서면으로 제한하고, 의사표시의 효력발생 시점을 통지시점으로 소급적용하는 등의 보다 정교한 법안 마련이 필요하다. 아울러 유언으로 보험수익자를 지정・변경하는 것의 허용 여부에 대해서도 심도 있는 논의와 검토가 필요한 시점이다.
보험계약에 대한 압류시 보험계약자와 제3채무자의 보험계약해지 가부에 관한 소고 - 대법원 2017. 4. 28.선고 2016다239840 판결(파기환송)을 중심으로 -
전한덕 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2017 외법논집 Vol.41 No.4
The main problem in relation to the exercise of the right of termination of insurance contracts seized in our country was the matter of abolishment of contract by creditors. In this regard, the Supreme Court of Korea consistently collected the insurance contract termination and termination reimbursement by the seizure creditor And academia generally follow the view of the Supreme Court. However, it has not been actively discussed whether the debtor or the third debtor can terminate the insurance contract that has been seized. This is because the beneficiary or the necessity to terminate the insurance contract was mainly for the foreclosure creditor, This is probably because the termination of the contract has been practiced in practice. However, when considering the fact that the contractual rights of the debtor who is the insurance contractor or the third debtor who is the insurance company are recognized in the terms of the contract or the commercial law, there is a clear necessity and opportunity to terminate the insured insurance contract. In this regard, the Supreme Court has recently issued a ruling to recognize the right of the debtor and the third debtor to terminate the insurance contract. I affirm that the third debtor will terminate the insurance contract if the reason for termination specified in the related laws or the terms of the contract occurs. However, I oppose for the debtor to arbitrarily terminate the insurance contract seized at any time, from the standpoint of creditor protection. In this paper, I examine the judgment of the debtor and the third debtor on the judgment of the Supreme Court 2016DA239840 sentenced on April 28, 2017. 우리나라에서 압류된 보험계약에 대한 해지권의 행사와 관련하여 주로 문제되었던 것은 채권자에의한 계약해지 가부에 관한 내용이었는데, 이에 대해서 우리 대법원은 일관되게 압류채권자에 의한 보험계약 해지 및 해지환급금에 대한 추심을 인정해 주고 있는 실정이고 학계도 대체로 대법원의 견해에 따르고 있다. 그러나 채무자나 제3채무자가 압류된 보험계약을 해지할 수 있는지 여부에 대하여는그 동안 활발하게 논의된 적은 없었는데, 이는 보험계약을 해지할 실익이나 필요성이 주로 압류채권자에게 있었고, 실제로 압류채권자에 의한 보험계약해지가 실무상 주로 행하여져 왔기 때문일 것이다. 하지만 보험계약자인 채무자나 보험회사인 제3채무자의 계약해지권이 약관이나 상법 등에서 인정되고있는 현실을 고려하였을 때, 이들도 압류된 보험계약에 대하여 해지를 할 필요성과 실익이 분명히 존재할 것이다. 이와 관련하여 최근 대법원에서는 채무자 및 제3채무자의 보험계약해지권을 인정하는취지의 판결을 내린바 있다. 필자는 제3채무자가 관련 법령이나 약관에서 정한 해지사유가 발생하였을 경우에 압류된 보험계약을 해지하는 것에 대해서는 긍정하는 바이지만, 채무자가 압류된 보험계약을 언제든지 임의로 해지하는 것에 대해서는 피보험자 및 수익자 보호, 채권자 보호의 견지에서 반대하는 입장이다. 본 논문에서는 2017년 4월 28일 선고된 대법원 2016다239840 판결을 중심으로 채무자 및 제3채무자의 압류보험계약 해지권 인정 가부에 대하여 검토해 보고자 한다.
전한덕 부산대학교 법학연구소 2023 법학연구 Vol.64 No.3
금융소비자보호법에서는 6대 판매행위 규제 원칙에 대해서 규정하고 있다. 그 중에서 적합성원칙은 금융판매회사가 파악한 투자자의 특성에 맞지 않는 부적합한 금융상품의 투자권유를 금지하는 의무이다. 과거 보험회사에서 수행해왔던 적합성원칙은 서류에 의존하여 다소 형식적으로 이루어져 왔다. 보험모집인이 보험가입자를 교사하거나 설득하여 사실과 다르게 적합성진단서류를 작성하게 하는 등의 퇴행적 관행도 지속적으로 발생하고 있다. 적합성원칙의 실효성 확보를 위해서는 금융소비자로부터 객관적이고 세밀한 정보를 제공받을 필요가 있다. 고객의 정보를 파악하는 방법도 원칙적으로 대면방식으로 한정하여야 할 것이다. 보험계약대출은 그 성질상 적합성원칙의 적용대상에서 제외되어야 한다. 또한 시대적 흐름상 비대면거래에 있어서도 원칙적으로 적합성원칙을 적용하는 것이 바람직하다. 그리고 적합성원칙 위반 시 고의 또는 과실에 대한 증명책임을 금융상품판매업자등에게 전환하고, 설명의무 위반의 경우와 동일한 제재를 가하는 것이 바람직하다. 적합성진단이 보다 실질적으로 운영될 수 있도록 감독당국의 감독 강화 및 지속적인 제도 개선이 필요하다.
전한덕 한국소비자원 2023 消費者問題硏究 Vol.54 No.2
It has already been three years since the Financial Consumer Protection Act was enacted and implemented. In the meantime, financial authorities and financial institutions have made great efforts to comply with complex and demanding the Financial Consumer Protection Act. As a result, the incomplete sales of financial companies are decreasing, and the awareness of the rights of financial consumers is spreading throughout the society. This is the most positive result of the Financial Consumer Protection Act. However, illegal sales practices related to the sale of financial products, such as large-scale fund redemption and incomplete sales of insurance products, are continuing to occur. In addition, the number of complaints in non-face-to-face financial transactions is increasing, and the Financial Consumer Protection Act should be implemented and observed more effectively in the future. The appropriateness principle needs to be understood and improved from this point of view, and it is necessary to reasonably adjust the subject and scope of the appropriateness principle to the purpose of the system. The obligation to information acquisition should focus on the purchase of appropriate insurance products by financial consumers, and the information and questions provided by consumers should be limited to the extent necessary to assess appropriateness. If a financial company violates the appropriateness principle, it is necessary to strengthen its duty of care and compliance efforts by strictly imposing burden of proof and sanctions. 금융소비자보호법이 제정되고 시행된지도 벌써 3년이 흘렀다. 그 동안 금융당국과 금융회사들은 복잡하고 까다로운 금융소비자보호법령의 준수를 위해 많은 노력을 기울여왔다. 그 결과 금융회사들의 불완전판매는 감소하는 추세로 나타났다. 또한 사회전반에 금융소비자에 대한 권리 의식이 확산되고 있다. 이것은 금융 소비자보호법의 가장 긍정적인 성과로 볼 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 대규모 펀드환매사태, 보험상품 불완전판매 등 금융상품 판매와 관련한 불건전 영업 관행은 지속적으로 발생하고 있다. 또한 최근 비대면 금융거래에서 발생하는 민원은 점점 더 증가하는 추세에 있다. 앞으로 금융소비자보호법령은 지금보다 더욱 실효성 있게 시행되고 준수되어야 할 것이다. 적정성원칙도 이러한 견지에서 이해되고 개선될 필요가 있다. 적정성원칙의 적용 주체와 범위를 제도의 취지에 맞게 합리적으로 조정할 필요가 있다. 정보파악의무는 금융소비자가 자신에게 적정한 보험상품을 구매하는 것에 초점을 맞추어야 하고, 소비자가 제공하는 정보나 질문도 적정성을 평가하기 위해 필요한 범위로 한정시켜야 한다. 금융회사가 적정성원칙을 위반했을 경우 증명책임과 제재를 엄격히 부과함으로써 주의의무 및 법규준수 노력을 강화할 필요가 있다.
국민건강보험과 실손의료보험제도의 개선방안에 관한 연구 ― 금융소비자 보호와 비급여항목 개선을 중심으로 ―
전한덕 전남대학교 법학연구소 2025 법학논총 Vol.45 No.3
실손의료보험으로 제공되는 보장의 범위는 급여와 비급여항목에 따라 달라진다. 국민건강보험으로 보장되는 급여항목은 주로 의사의 진료, 입원, 수술, 검사 등이 있는바, 이는 기본적인 의료서비스에 해당된다. 이러한 급여항목은 건강보험의 기준에 따라 정해지며, 건강보험공단에서 정한 급여 목록에 포함되어 있기 때문에 큰 문제가 발생하지 않는다. 이에 반해 비급여항목은 건강보험으로 보장하지 않는 선택진료, 비급여 약제, 특정 검사 및 치료법 등이 포함되는데, 병원마다 진료가격이 일정하지 않고, 비용도 큰 경우가 많기 때문에 이를 둘러싼 병원의 과잉진료, 보험가입자의 보험사기 등 각종 불법행위가 빈번하게 발생하고 있고, 이로 인해 국민의 의료비와 보험료 부담이 증가하고, 민영보험회사의 재정 누수가 심각해지고 있다. 실손의료보험을 둘러싼 다양한 문제점들에 대해 시급한 개선이 필요하다는 문제의식은 사회적으로 어느 정도 합의가 된 것으로 보인다. 그동안 정부는 의료개혁특별위원회를 중심으로 비급여항목과 실손의료보험 개혁방안을 구체화해 왔다. 대표적인 개혁방안으로는 비급여 시장의 체계적 관리, 비급여의 급여화 및 관리급여 도입, 병행진료 금지 및 실손의료보험상품의 합리적 개선 등이 있다. 이 모든 개혁안은 결국 비급여항목과 실손의료보험상품의 개혁으로 귀결된다. 그중에서도 비급여항목을 체계적으로 관리・통제하고, 종국에는 비급여항목을 최대한 급여로 전환하는 것이 이번 개혁의 승패를 가름하는 핵심 사항이라고 판단된다. 비급여 관리체계 개선은 일반 국민, 의료계, 건강보험공단, 민영보험회사 사이에 첨예한 이해관계에 놓여있기 때문에 그리 쉬운 문제가 아니다. 따라서 일반 국민과 의료계, 보험회사 모두 공감할 수 있는 합리적 방안을 마련하는 것이 필요하다. 비급여 관리의 가장 핵심 목표는 ‘국민의 건강 증진과 의료비 부담 경감’에 있다고 판단된다. 따라서 비급여항목과 실손의료보험제도의 개선도 이러한 관점에서 이루어져야 할 것이다. The scope of coverage of indemnity health insurance varies depending on the covered and non-covered items. The items covered by National Health Insurance mainly include doctor's consultation, hospitalization, surgery and examination, which are considered basic medical services. These items are determined according to the standards of health insurance and are included in the list of items determined by the National Health Insurance Corporation, so there are no major problems. On the other hand, non-covered medical items include elective treatment, non-covered drugs, specific tests and treatments are not covered by National Health Insurance. Non-covered medical treatment costs are not fixed at each hospital and are often expensive, so various illegal acts such as excessive treatment by hospitals and insurance fraud frequently occur, which increases the burden of medical expenses and insurance premiums on the people and seriously reduces the financial resources of private insurance companies. There seems to be a certain degree of social consensus on the need for urgent improvement in the various problems surrounding the indemnity health insurance. Meanwhile, the government has been specifying reform plans for non-covered medical items and indemnity health insurance centered around the Special Committee on Medical Reform. Representative reform measures include systematic management of the non-covered medical items market, introduction of non-benefit coverage to benefit coverage and managed coverage, prohibition of mixed treatment and rational improvement of indemnity health insurance product. All of these reforms ultimately lead to reforms in non-covered medical items and indemnity health insurance product. Among these, it is judged that systematically managing and controlling non-covered medical items and ultimately converting non- covered items to covered items as much as possible are the key factors that will determine the success or failure of this reform. Improving the non-covered medical items management system is not an easy task because it involves sharp conflicts of interest among the general public, the medical community, the National Health Insurance Corporation and private insurance companies. Therefore, it is necessary to devise a reasonable solution that can be agreed upon by the general public, the medical community and insurance companies. It is believed that the most important goal of non-covered medical items management is to promote the health of the people and reduce the burden of medical expenses. Therefore, improvements to non-covered medical items and the indemnity health insurance system should also be made from this perspective.
상해보험에서 인과관계와 증명책임 - 대법원 2023. 4. 27. 선고 2022다303216 판결을 중심으로 -
전한덕 (사)한국보험법학회 2024 보험법연구 Vol.18 No.1
The ruling deals with a case in which a dead person is diagnosed with spinal disorders and dementia at a hospital after a fall, and the airway is blocked during a meal. He usually suffered from myocardial infarction. In this case, it became an issue that the evaluation of impairment of various hospitals conducted to judge the causal relation between the accident and the result of the disability and death of the insured in the casualty insurance contract joined by the plaintiff. In order to judge the disability caused by the disaster, the court of first instance designated one hospital and applied for a fact inquiry. The causal relation between the fall accident and the disability of the deceased was denied because of the result of the fact inquiry of the hospital and the dead person’s previous symptoms. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court accepted the judgment of the Court of First Instance. However, it is difficult to understand the judgment of the court that there is no causal relation between the fall accident and the disability without various evidence collection procedures. On the other hand, the first court and the appellate court ruled that there is a direct connection between the suffocation and death of the dead man, while the Supreme Court denied it and ordered the reversal. The opinions of the hospital and the National Forensic Service, which judged the cause of death of the deceased, were contradictory. In addition, the results of the fact-finding of two hospitals conducted during the proceedings were also contradictory. Nevertheless, the decision to conclude that the cause of death was suffocation in the lower court trial is not convincing. In this way, despite the fact that the results of fact-finding of various hospitals in relation to the disability and death of the deceased are incompatible with each other, it is beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence that the court ruled without observing the empirical or logical laws and ignoring the evidence trial. Therefore, I am in favor of the Supreme Court's order of reversal on the death caused by the disaster of the lower court, but I am opposed to the acceptation of the lower court's decision on the claim for disability.
국민건강보험공단의 본인부담상한 초과액에 관한 법적 고찰 -대법원 2024. 1. 25. 선고 2023다283913 판결을 중심으로-
전한덕 서강대학교 법학연구소 2024 법과기업연구 Vol.14 No.2
In October 2009, the standard terms and conditions were introduced for the first time in actual expense medical insurance, the excess amount according to the self-payment cap system implemented by the National Health Insurance Corporation is specified as not being covered by the insurance policy. However, disputes have arisen constantly as to whether or not the amount exceeding the upper limit is included in the compensation target of the actual medical expense insurance that was concluded before the amendment of the standard conditions, and the judgment has been diverged in the lower court. However, the Supreme Court recently clarified that even in the case of the so-called first-generation actual expense medical insurance, which was concluded before the revision of the standard terms and conditions, the insured person guarantees the part of the medical care benefit under the National Health Insurance Act that finally pays, and the amount refunded by the National Health Insurance Corporation in excess of the upper limit of burden is not covered. As a result, the insurance company can claim the claim for return of wrongful gain on the reimbursement paid by the National Health Insurance Corporation against the insured or the beneficiary who joined the first-generation actual expense medical insurance according to the Supreme Court's decision. Nevertheless, in practice, it will be very difficult for insurance companies to recover insurance money that have already been paid, and complaints will inevitably arise from the insurance consumer. In this case, unnecessary administrative costs or litigation costs will be incurred, and the money that can not be returned will be taken by the insurance company as a loss. There is a need to come up with a reasonable plan to flexibly solve these realistic problems. Although the plan to prepare the settlement procedure between the National Health Insurance Corporation and the insurance company that is currently being promoted is considered to be the most effective and feasible plan in reality, it should be accompanied by the maintenance of the related terms, laws and systems.
금융회사의 지배구조법령과 후속 과제에 관한 연구 - 보험업권을 중심으로 -
전한덕 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2024 외법논집 Vol.48 No.3
Recently, due to the continuous occurrence of various financial accidents such as the large-scale loss caused by the mis-selling of Hong Kong ELS funds, incomplete sales of various funds, and embezzlement by internal employees, skepticism about the effectiveness of the internal control system has increased, and as a measure to improve this, amendments to the Act on the Governance Structure of Financial Companies and its subordinate statutes have been prepared. The revised Corporate Governance Act included matters concerning the establishment and supervision of internal control and risk management policies in the deliberation and resolution of the board of directors, and strengthened the board to carry out the obligation to manage the internal control of officers and CEOs. In addition, the internal control system has been fully revised so that financial companies themselves have defined the internal control responsibilities of each management in advance and have regulated the management to bear responsibility for control and management of delegated tasks. However, as many concerns have been revealed in the revised law, this paper focuses on problems and improvements in the domestic system compared to the UK senior management certification system. In particular, I focused on ways to solve the challenges expected in the implementation of senior management certification systems and accountability structures in insurance companies. According to the revised Corporate Governance Act, it is expected that there will be many changes and developments in the internal control work of Korean financial companies centering on the structure of responsibility.However, it is expected that there will be various difficulties and trial and error at the beginning of the system implementation.Due to the ambiguity and abstraction of the internal control system, there is a high possibility that various operational limitations will be revealed in the actual operation process of financial companies. The most important factor in the operation of the internal control system is the will of the representative and the voluntary and active compliance efforts of the employees.
전한덕 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2019 외법논집 Vol.43 No.2
As the national income rises, people visit hospitals more often and more people visit hospitals for preemptive or health-promoting purposes. But medical accidents are steadily increasing year after year, and the patient’s damage is growing. But solutions and procedures related to medical disputes are not up to the expectations of the public. In order to avoid the complexity and difficulty of resolving disputes in the event of medical accidents, medical compensation liability insurance product is on sale by private insurance companies and Medical Indemnity Mutual under the Korea Medical Association. However, the performance of the medical professional liability insurance is so low that many questions are raised about its effectiveness. Patients who fail to receive insurance benefits in the event of a medical accident may file a lawsuit with the court or use the arbitration system of the Korea Consumer Protection Agency or the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. These systems are assessed to be somewhat less realistic because there are many restrictions for patients to use. Due to the shocking medical accidents such as the recent death of Shin Hae-chul and the mass death of newborns at Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, there are growing voices calling for a major reform of the existing medical conflict process. In this thesis, I will review the feasibility and other considerations on the proposed revision of the Medical Act, recently submitted to the National Assembly and under consideration, which contains mandatory join of medical professional liability insurance. 국민소득이 높아짐에 따라 국민들이 병원을 자주 방문하고 있고, 이제는 사후 치료보다는 사전예방또는 건강증진의 목적으로 병원을 찾는 사람들도 점점 늘어나고 있다. 그러나 의료사고는 해마다 꾸준히 증가하고 있고, 환자들의 피해는 커지고 있는데도 국내 의료분쟁과 관련된 해결방법과 절차들은 국민들의 기대와 눈높이에 부응하지 못하고 있다. 우리나라는 의료사고가 발생하였을 경우 분쟁해결의복잡성과 난해함을 피하기 위하여 현재 의사들이 임의로 가입할 수 있는 민간보험회사와 대한의사협회 산하 의료배상공제조합에서 운영하는 의사배상책임보험제도를 운영하고 있다. 그러나 의사배상책임보험 가입 실적은 매우 저조하여 그 실효성에 많은 의문이 제기되고 있다. 의료사고 발생시 보험의혜택을 받지 못하는 환자는 법원에 소송을 제기하거나 한국소비자보호원이나 한국의료분쟁조정중재원의 조정이나 중재제도를 활용할 수 있다. 이러한 제도들은 환자가 이용하기에는 많은 제약이 따르기때문에 현실성이 다소 떨어진다는 평가를 받고 있다. 최근 들어 발생한 신해철 사망사건 및 이대목동병원 신생아 집단 사망사건과 같은 충격적인 의료사고 등을 계기로 우리사회에서는 기존의 후진적인 의료분쟁 절차에 대하여 대대적인 개혁을 요구하는목소리가 늘어나고 있다. 본 논문에서는 최근 국회에 제출되어 심사중에 있는 의사배상책임보험 의무화 도입을 주된 골자로 하는 의료법 개정안에 대하여 그 타당성 여부와 기타 고려사항들에 대하여 중점적으로 다룬다.