영국보험법상 기업보험에서 고지의무의 주관적 요건에 관한 연구

한기정 한국상사법학회 2020 商事法硏究 Vol.38 No.4

The U.K. enacted the Insurance Act (hereafter ʻIAʼ) in 2015. IA prescribes the insuredˈs duty of disclosure regarding risks in the area of non-consumer insurance. This article particularly focuses on how the knowledge of the insured and the insurer act as subjective requirements for the duty of disclosure. As these requirements are significant factors limiting the scope of the duty of disclosure, it is important to strike a fair balance between the interests of the insured and the insurer. Research has rarely been made on the subjective requirements for the duty of disclosure in the Korean Commercial Code Sec. 651. This study of IA may draw meaningful implications for the interpretation and reform of the Korean Commercial Code Sec. 651. The knowledge of the insured has two interesting aspects. First, IA reduces legal uncertainties by defining the insuredˈs knowledge in more detail. IA stipulates whose knowledge is to be understood as the insuredˈs knowledge especially when the insured is not an individual. This rule may be worth consulting in interpreting and reforming the Korean Commercial Code Sec. 651. Second, IA either narrows down or broadens the scope of the insuredˈs knowledge. The latter indicates the introduction of reasonable search. This means that the insured ought to know what should reasonably have been revealed by a reasonable search of information available to the insured. It is widely recognized that the requirement of reasonable search places a heavy burden on the insured as it expands the range of information for disclosure. The requirement of reasonable search is difficult to refer to in interpreting the Korean Commercial Code sec. 651 which forbids the insured’s fraudulent or grossly negligent disclosure. It would also be doubtful at this stage to introduce the concept of reasonable search into the Korean Commercial Code Regarding the insurerˈs knowledge, there have been no significant changes. IA stipulates in detail about the insurerˈs knowledge dividing it into what the insure knows, what the insurer ought to know, and what the insurer is presumed to know. A notable change is that IA sec. 5 subsec. 2 ⒝ includes readily available and relevant information held by the insurer into what the insurer ought to know. This rule may be worth consulting in interpreting and reforming the Korean Commercial Code sec. 651. 영국에서 2015년에 보험법(Insurance Act 2015)(이하 ʻIAʼ)이 제정되었다. IA는기업보험(non-consumer insurance)에 있어서 위험정보에 관한 고지의무(the duty of disclosure)에 대해 규정하고 있다. 본 논문은 고지의무의 요건 및 효과를 개관하고, 특히 보험계약자 및 보험자의 주관적 요건에 초점을 두고 살펴보고자 한다. 여기서 주관적 요건은 보험계약자 및 보험자의 인식(knowledge)의문제로서 고지의무의 범위를 정하는 중요한 요소이다. 이는 보험계약자와 보험자의 이해관계를 조정하여 균형 있게 정해져야 할 사항이다. 우리나라에서 고지의무(상법 651조)의 주관적 요건에 대한 심층적 연구는 아직 충분하지 않은 단계이다. IA가 규정하는 고지의무의 주관적 요건에 대한 연구를 통해서 해석론및 입법론에 관련된 시사점을 얻을 수 있다. IA에 따른 고지의무의 주관적 요건의 구체적 내용과 우리 법에 대한 시사점은 다음과 같다. 먼저, 보험계약자의 주관적 요건을 본다. 첫째, IA는 보험계약자의 주관적 요건을 보다 구체적으로 규정하여 법적 불확실성을 제거한 측면이 있다. IA는 보험계약자가 아는 것이 구체적으로 누가 아는 것을 의미하는지에 대해 규정하고있다. 이는 우리 상법의 해석에 고려할 수 있다. 특히 보험계약자가 개인이 아닌 단체인 경우에 그러한 규정은 참고의 필요성이 크다. 또한 이는 향후 우리상법의 개정 시에 반영을 고려해볼 사항이다. 둘째, 보험계약자의 주관적 요건을 축소하거나 확대한 측면도 있다. 이 중에서 주관적 요건의 확대는 합리적 검색의 요건을 도입한 것을 가리키는데, 이에 의해서 보험계약자가 알아야 하는사항의 범위가 확대되었고 보험계약자의 부담이 커졌다고 보는 것이 중론이다. 합리적 검색의 요건은 우리 상법 651조의 해석에는 고려하기 어렵고, 향후 우리상법의 개정 시에 이를 도입하는 데에도 신중을 기할 필요가 있다. 다음, 보험자의 주관적 요건을 보면, 이는 기본적으로 기존에 비해 크게 달라지지 않았다. 보험계약자의 주관적 요건이 크게 확대된 것과 비교할 때 보험자의 주관적 요건의 확대는 상대적으로 경미하여 결과적으로 양자의 균형이 깨진측면이 있다. IA는 보험자의 주관적 요건을 보험자가 아는 것, 보험자가 알아야하는 것, 보험자가 안다고 간주되는 것으로 구분하여 상세히 규정하고 있다. 상당한 변화는 IA 5조 2항⒝가 보험자가 보유한 정보로서 용이하게 이용가능한정보라면 이를 보험자가 알아야 하는 사항에 포함시킨 점이다. IA 5조 2항⒝는우리 상법 651조에 따른 보험자의 고의 또는 중과실을 해석하는 데에 고려할수 있고, 향후 우리 상법의 개정 시에 반영을 고려해볼 사항이다.

특집 _ 보험법의 최신 동향 : 사기에 의한 보험금청구에 관한 연구

한기정 서울대학교 금융법센터 2012 BFL Vol.56 No.-

공작놀이가 정신지체아의 주의집중력을 키우는데 끼치는 영향과 그 효과에 관한 현장연구

한기정 이화여자대학교 사회복지관 1980 社會福祉館論集 Vol.3 No.-

명의차용자의 불법행위와 상법 제24조의 적용 문제 - 명의대여자의 사용자책임을 포함하여-

한기정 한국상사법학회 2008 商事法硏究 Vol.27 No.3

This paper deals with the legal issue of whether according to the sec. 24 of the Korean Commercial Code(hereafter “KCC”) the nominal business proprietor should be liable for the real business proprietor’s tort against the third party. The court decided that the nominal business proprietor is not so, on the ground that there is no causal relationship between the third party’s reliance on the apparent ownership and the loss caused by the real business proprietor’s tort. Some academics hold the same position as the court decision, while there is a strong differing opinion that the sec. 24 of the KCC should be applicable to the real business proprietor’s contractual tort against the third party. The latter’s view confirms to Japanese court decisions and dominant academical view which argue that as far as contractual tort is concerned there is a sufficient causal relationship between the third party’s reliance on the apparent ownership and the loss caused by the real business proprietor’s tort. It is true that there is such a causal relationship between them. However, that the nominal business proprietor is liable for the real business proprietor’s tort according to the sec. 24 of the KCC means that the former is liable for the latter’s tort even when the former does not have supervisory responsibility for the latter. This contradicts with one of the principles of the civil law that one should be liable for another’s tort only when the former has supervisory responsibility for the latter. It is suggested that the nominal business proprietor should liable for the real business proprietor’s tort against the third party according to the sec. 756 of the Korean Civil Code instead of the sec. 24 of the KCC. The sec. 756 of the Korean Civil Code prescribes that the person who has supervisory responsibility for another person should be liable for the latter’s tort against third party. One of the requirements of the sec. 756 of the Korean Civil Code is the existence of supervisory relationship. It is suggested that the court be quick to recognise apparent supervisory relationship so that the third party’s reliance on it may be reasonably protected.

약정보험가액에 관한 연구

한기정 한국상사법학회 2015 商事法硏究 Vol.33 No.4

It is frequently suggested that an amendment needs to be made for valued policy in section 670 of Korean Commercial Code. The current law is not conclusively enforcing the effect of the agreed value of the subject matter of insurance(hereafter “agreed value”). In other words, while it is presumed that the agreed value is the actual value of the subject matter of insurance(hereafter “actual value”), when the agreed value significantly exceeds the actual value the latter is regarded as the value of the subject matter of insurance. The above suggestion aims to recognize the conclusive validity of the agreed value. However, so far the above suggestion has not been taken into account in legislation. Not only has the above amendment not been included in the comprehensive reform of the Insurance Part of Korean Commercial Code in 2014, it was not given much attention to during the reform process. The reason for this is partly because the above suggestion has not yet gained enough support in Korea. There are even some who are still against the idea. There are three different ways deciding the effect of the agreed value. The first is to give conclusive force to the agreed value except in cases of wager, fraud and breach of duty of disclosure. The second is to give conclusive force to the actual value when there is a significant difference between the agreed value and the actual value. The third is to impose on the insurer the burden of proving the actual value. This paper investigates and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the first and second ways mentioned above and aims to suggest which one is more suitable for Korean insurance business practice. The conclusion is that considering current insurance practices in Korea, giving conclusive force to the agreed value can be a better solution. In Korea, the agreed value is usually decided on the basis of a fairly objective standard of evaluation, not likely to expose the insured to a moral hazard that stems from a significant difference between the agreed value and the actual value. In spite of this, allowing the exemption or reduction of the obligation to pay claims in case of such a difference may seriously harm the stability and trust of an insurance contracts relationship.

미국 약관규제법에 관한 소고

한기정 梨花女子大學校 法學硏究所 2001 法學論集 Vol.6 No.1

This article tries to explore the American law of standard term contracts. Its aim is to provide a basis for comparative law study between Korean law and American law by reference to standard term contracts. American law is analysed according to the regulations of incorporation, interpretation and contents. Firstly, the American position in the regulation of incorporation does not seem to be as favorable to the customer as the Korean position, in that the former does not imposes on the entrepreneur a general obligation to explain material standard terms to the customer. Secondly, the regulation of interpretation centers on the rules of Contra Proferentem and Reasonable Expectations, which are highly controversial issues in America. There is a hostile argument against those rules on the grounds that they sometimes go beyond the ordinary meaning of interpretation. Thirdly, the Doctrine of Unconscionability has been developed for the regulation of contents. Notably, the doctrine consists of not only substantial unconscionability but also procedural unconscionability, which is not required by Korean law.

전기통신사업법상 통신이용자 보호에 관한 연구

한기정 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會) 2004 행정법연구 Vol.- No.11

This article is to explore into the protection of the consumers according to the Korean Telecommunication law. The significance of this issue is highlighted by the facts that the telecommunication service is a public utility, a monopolistic or oligopolistic item, and a complicated and hi-tech product. The Korean Telecommunication Law has several provisions for consumer protection. However, some difficulties arise in the interpretation of the Law, and furthermore a reform of the Law is desirable in certain aspects. First, the equality of price between consumers should not be interpreted as uniform but reasonable discrimination be allowed. Second, the provision of telecommunication services contrary to standard terms itself is not a prohibited action. It will be regulated If only it violates fair competition or discriminates between consumers. Third, telecommunication service provider should be interpreted as bearing civil liability except force majeure. Fourth, the general prohibition of undue discrimination of consumers needs to be declared in the Law. Fifth, the principle of lowness of price is to be substituted by the principles of fairness and properness. Sixth, the provision that the actions of tied-agents be treated as the actions of the telecommunication service providers needs to be abolished. Finally, standard terms should be more tightly regulated.

특수아를 위한 부모교육프로그램 : 이화여대 사회복지관 '특수아동교실'을 중심으로

한기정 이화여자대학교 사회복지관 1986 社會福祉館論集 Vol.4 No.-

타인의 사망보험에서 피보험자의 동의 흠결시 법적 효과에 관한 연구

한기정 보험연구원 2006 보험금융연구 Vol.17 No.3

According to Art. 731(1) of Korean Commercial Code, the policyholder must acquire the insured's authorization before making the insurance contract under which the policyholder differs from the insured. The case of 2005Da11612, 11619 held by Korean Supreme Court related with the interpretation of the above Article. This article deals with major issues of the decision: first, whether the insurance contract is interpreted as still void even though the policyholder acquires the insured's authorization after its conclusion, and whether the above article needs to be reformed as providing that the insurer be not allowed to claim the voidness of the contract when the policyholder omitted the insured's authorization before the time provided because of the failure by the insurer's intermediary to explain to him the requirement of the authorization but acquires it afterwards; second, whether the recognition of the intermediary's duty to explain is desirable, and if so which is its legal basis, and whether the requirement of authorization could reasonably be an object of the duty to explain; finally, some legal issues surrounding the insurer's responsibility to pay damages when its intermediary neglected to explain the requirement to the policyholder when mediating the insurance contract. 타인의 사명보험의 경우 보험계약자는 보험계약의 체결시에 그 타인의 서면동의를 얻어야 한다(상법 제731조 제1항). 본 논문은, 동 규정에 대한 해석론 및 입법론을 대법원 2005다11602, 11619 판결을 중심으로 논의한다. 본 논문은, 첫째, 계약의 체결시 피보험자 동의가 흠결된 경우 법적 효과에 대한 대상판결의 해석론이 타당한지, 입법적으로 보완할 여지는 없는지, 둘째, 피보험자의 동의요건에 대한 설명의무를 긍정한 대상판결의 해석론이 타당한지, 입법적으로 보완할 여지는 없는지, 그리고 설명의무의 위반시 보험자의 사용자책임에 관한 해석론은 타당한지 등을 다루었다. 본 논문은, 보험계약의 체결시 피보험자의 동의가 흠결되면 확정적 무효로 해석해야 하고, 다만 보험계약자가 보험계약의 체결시 동의요건에 대한 설명을 듣지 못한 경우 보험자가 추인의무를 부담하는 것으로 입법해야 하고, 또한 피보험자 동의요건에 대한 설명의무가 인정될 필요가 있으며 다만 피보험자 동의요건이 설명의무의 대상임을 상법 또는 보험업법에 명시해야 한다고 제안한다. 마지막으로, 설명의무 위반으로 인한 손해배상책임과 관련하여 대상판결의 문제점도 지적하였다.

상법 출제와 채점 예

한기정 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 법학교육연구센터 2006 법학교육연구 = Korean journal of legal education Vol.1 No.-