프랑스 損害保險契約法上의 故意免責原則 = The Exemption of Indemnity of a Wilful Act in French Insurance Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 양승규, "피용자의 고의, 중과실로 인한 사고와 보험자의 책임" (360) : 1998

2 양승규, "피보험자의 고의로 생긴 사고의 뜻" (261) : 1990

3 양승규, "피보험자동차의 운전자의 고의로 생긴 사고를 면책사유로 한 보험약관의 효력" (286) : 1992

4 황창근, "자동차보험약관상 면책사유로서 피보험자의 고의로 인한 손해의 개념" 한국보험학회 2008

5 최기원, "상법학신론(하)" 박영사 2005

6 정찬형, "상법강의(하)" 박영사 2007

7 채이식, "상법강의(하)" 박영사 2003

8 이철송, "상법강의" 박영사 2007

9 손주찬, "상법(하)" 박영사 2006

10 장경환, "상법 제732조의 2의 합헌성과 상해보험약관상의 무면허?음주운전 면책조항의 효력" 경희대학교 국제법무대학원 (5) : 2000

11 김성태, "보험법강론" 법문사 2002

12 양승규, "보험법" 박영사 1998

13 김성태, "보험계약법상의 고의.중과실면책원칙(상법 제659조 1항)의 적용범위에 대한 검토" 25 : 1985

14 정진세, "무보험과 상법 제732조의 2" 법률신문 (2680) :

15 김성태, "무면허운전으로 인한 상해에 대한 보험자의 책임" (2504) :

16 최준선, "無免許運轉중의 事故와 傷害保險" (2515) :

17 양승규, "“수렵보험에서 피보험자의 고의 등의 생긴 법령위반 사고”의 의미" (428) : 2004

18 "Rapport de la cour de cassation"

19 Chabas, Fran?is, "Les accidents de la circulation" Dalloz 1995

20 Kullmann, Jerome, "Lamy assurance" Lamy 1999

21 Chartier, Yves, "La r?aration du pr?udice dans la responsabilit?civile" Dalloz 1983

22 "La documentation Francaise"

23 Groutel, Hubert, "Droit des assurances" Dalloz 2004

24 Lamber-Faivre, Yvonne, "Droit des assurances" Dalloz 1998

25 Tunc, "Andr? Pour une loi sur les accidents de la circulation" Economica 1981

26 Tunc, "Andr? La Reparation du dommage corporel" Economica 1981