타인을 위한 보험에 있어서 계약 해지의 요건에 관한 연구 = A study on the requirement for the termination of contract in the Insurance for Benefits of Third Party

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Under Article 649(Voluntary Termination of Contracts Prior to Occurrence of Perils Insured against) of the Commercial Act, A policyholder may terminate a contract in whole or in part at any time before a peril insured against occurs : Provided, That in cases of an insurance contract prescribed in Article 639(Insurance for Benefits of Third Party), the policyholder shall not terminate the contract without obtaining the consent of the third party or carrying the insurance policy with him/her.
Should we consider the requirement for termination to meet both 'obtaining the consent of the third party' and 'carrying the insurance policy'? Or should we interpret that meeting only one of them can terminate the contract? Currently, most insurance law references interprets that the termination of an insurance contract requires only one of 'obtaining the consent of the third party' and 'carrying the insurance policy'. In addition, there were multiple-choice questions in nation-certified qualification tests several times, such as insurance expert tests.
Looking at the legislative purpose at the time of the amendment of the law in 1991, it is certain that ‘obtaining the consent of the third party’ was a requirement, but it is doubtful how it could be interpreted that most insurance law references and insurance expert tests can terminate the contract with insurance policy only.
In this paper, I proved through several cases and logical methods that there are problems in interpreting existing commercial law regulations. And it justified that the requirement of termination meets both 'obtaining the consent of the third party' and the 'carrying the insurance policy'. In particular, in the case of guarantee insurance, which is a kind of insurance for benefits of third party, in order to protect the insured, 'obtaining the consent of the third party' must be a mandatory requirement.
If the current provision is properly interpreted according to the purpose of the original legislation, there would be no problem. However, even if the current provision is correct, the explanation is difficult and controversial enough. An easier and clearer amendment is as follows.
“Article 649 (Voluntary Termination of Contracts Prior to Occurrence of Perils Insured against) (1) A policyholder may terminate a contract in whole or in part at any time before a peril insured against occurs: Provided, That in cases of an insurance contract prescribed in Article 639, the policyholder must obtain the consent of the third party and carry an insurance policy at the same time to terminate the contract.”Under Article 649(Voluntary Termination of Contracts Prior to Occurrence of Perils Insured against) of the Commercial Act, A policyholder may terminate a contract in whole or in part at any time before a peril insured against occurs : Provided, That in cases of an insurance contract prescribed in Article 639(Insurance for Benefits of Third Party), the policyholder shall not terminate the contract without obtaining the consent of the third party or carrying the insurance policy with him/her.
Should we consider the requirement for termination to meet both 'obtaining the consent of the third party' and 'carrying the insurance policy'? Or should we interpret that meeting only one of them can terminate the contract? Currently, most insurance law references interprets that the termination of an insurance contract requires only one of 'obtaining the consent of the third party' and 'carrying the insurance policy'. In addition, there were multiple-choice questions in nation-certified qualification tests several times, such as insurance expert tests.
Looking at the legislative purpose at the time of the amendment of the law in 1991, it is certain that ‘obtaining the consent of the third party’ was a requirement, but it is doubtful how it could be interpreted that most insurance law references and insurance expert tests can terminate the contract with insurance polic...

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이원돈, "해설 보험계약법" 대구대학교 출판부 2011

2 양승규, "타인을 위한 보험계약과 보험계약자에 의한 계약 해지의 효과" 삼지원 2000

3 최병규, "최근 생명보험 분야의 법적 쟁점"

4 한국사법행정학회, "주석 상법(보험1)"

5 보험연수원, "손해보험분쟁조정사례"

6 이원돈, "상법 제649조 제1항 단서의 해석 : 타인을 위한 보험계약의 임의해지" 한국보험학회 59 : 2001

7 법무부, "상법 보험편 개정 시안"

8 양승규, "보험법개정의 관점" 청목출판사 2009

9 김성태, "보험법강론" 법문사 2001

10 한창희, "보험법" 국민대학교 출판부 2016

11 한기정, "보험법" 박영사 2018

12 장덕조, "보험법" 법문사 2016

13 이용석, "보험법" 도서출판 두남 2016

14 유주선, "보험법" 도서출판 씨아이알 2018

15 박세민, "보험법" 박영사 2017

16 이필규, "보험계약법(한국)시안" 세창출판사 2017

17 법무부, "보험ㆍ해상법의 개정 방향"

18 "국립어학원 질의응답 내용"

19 山下友信, "保險法" 有斐閣 2019

20 "Http://www.insweek.co.kr/48979"

21 이필규, "2009년 독일 보험계약법(VVG)" 세창출판사 2009