다른 보험계약의 존재에 대한 고지의부 및 통지의무 -대판 2000.1.11, 99다33311을 중심으로-

한기정 ( Ki Jeong Han ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2003 法學論集 Vol.8 No.1

보험계약상 고지의무에 대한 입법론적 고찰

한기정 ( Ki Jeong Han ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2011 서울대학교 法學 Vol.52 No.3

The recent reforms of insurance contracts law in some leading countries have been focused mainly on protecting consumer insureds. Referring to those reforms, this article tries to analyse and review the current duty of disclosure stipulated in the Korean Commercial Code sec. 651, and suggest its desirable reform. As the reason for consulting foreign legislatures is to turn to them just for guidance, our proposals about reforming the above sec. 651 should give full considerations to our insurance circumstances, practices and cases. The contents of this article are as follows: the analysis and review of the existing duty of disclosure, recent developments of leading legislatures, the present position of our law in comparison of those legislatures, and some proposals for reforming our law. This article deals with whether or not to extend actionable non-disclosure or misrepresentation to negligent one. Only fraudulent or grossly negligent one is actionable under the current law. It is suggested that the current law be maintained for the time being. The main reason is that such an extension may be against the protection of consumer insureds. Next, this article deals with whether or not to introduce the proportionate remedies to grossly negligent non-disclosure or misrepresentation. Such remedies are adopted by France, PEICL, and reform proposals by the English Law Commission, while rejected by German and Japan. The benefits of proportionate remedies are not obvious to our law, where the distinction between fraud and gross negligence is difficult and there seem to be few that might be categorized into grossly negligent non-disclosure or misrepresentation. The choice of proportionate remedies may be on the table only if negligent non-disclosure or misrepresentation becomes actionable.

금융기관 영업행위규제의 법적 체계론

한기정 ( Ki Jeong Han ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2006 法學論集 Vol.10 No.1

The Purpose of this study is to explore into legal bases for duties of financial services providers. Lots of articles and reports have been published in Korea by reference to such duties since 2002 when the attempt to integrate existing financial services acts was made, which was influenced by the English Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. However, those articles and reports are focused nor on the legal bases but on economic analyses or policy issues. It is suggested that to establish legal bases for duties of financial providers is indispensable to the desirable stipulation of those duties. This research tries to make clear the legal bases for those duties.

생명보험신탁의 법적 문제에 관한 고찰

한기정 ( Ki Jeong Han ) 보험연구원 2009 보험금융연구 Vol.20 No.2

생명보험의 보험금청구권을 신탁재산으로 하는 신탁인 생명보험신탁(life insurance trust)은 생명보험과 신탁이 결합된 것이다. 생명보험신탁이 1930년대 이후부터 활성화되었던 미국과 달리, 우리나라에서 생명보험신탁이 주목을 받기 시작한 것은 최근이다. 그런데 지금까지 우리 법에는 생명보험신탁에 관한 명시적 법규가 존재하지 않기 때문에, 생명보험신탁이 허용되는지, 어떠한 법적 형식을 취하여야 하는지가 명백하지 않은 상황이다. 본 논문은 이러한 문제의식 하에 생명보험신탁이 우리법상 허용되는지에 대해 해석론을 전개하고, 더 나아가 법 개정이 필요하다고 판단되는 부분에 대해서는 입법론도 개진하였다. 주요 쟁점은, 첫째, 보험금청구권이 신탁재산으로 될 수 있는지 여부, 둘째, 수탁자가 보험계약자로서 보험계약을 체결할 때 그 상대방인 보험자가 수탁자와 동일인인 경우에는, 수탁자의 자기거래 현상이 발생할 수 있는데, 위탁자나 신탁수익자의 동의가 있는 경우 자기거래가 허용될 수 있는지 여부, 셋째, 수탁자를 보험수익자로 정하는 경우에는 신탁선언의 문제가 생길 소지가 있는데 그것이 허용될 수 있는지 여부 등이다. 생명보험신탁의 활성화는 금융소비자 및 금융사업자 모두에게 이익을 줄 수 있을 것이므로, 현행법 하에서 가능하면 허용될 수 있도록 해석할 필요가 있고, 또한 그렇지 않은 부분에 대해서는 법령 개정을 할 필요가 있다고 본다. There has been a great increase in the use of life insurance trust since 1930. As Korean life insurance companies have been recently authorized to carry on trust business as well as insurance business, they became to be interested in producing and selling life insurance trusts. However, it is not clear whether or not such products are permitted under the current Korean law. This article tries to interpret whether they are allowed under the current law, and to suggest legislative reform for solving possible legal problems. The legal issues dealt with by this article are classified as follows. First, the question arises whether or not the trust of a right to insurance claim is legally possible under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act(FSCMA), which restricts trust properties to limited properties such as pecuniary claims. The answer should be affirmative, as far as the object o·f insurance claim is cash, in that the right to such an insurance claim can be categorized into pecuniary claim. It is suggested that the FSCMA be changed to include all kinds of properties as trust properties, on the basis that the restriction of trust properties has lost its ground nowadays. Secondly, when the trustee insures settlor`s life as a policyholder and an insurer, this act of insuring may amount to the self-dealing which is in principle prohibited so as to prevent the conflict of interests under the FSCMA. The current law is interpreted to bar such a self-dealing even though the settlor or the beneficiary of the trust consents to it, but it may be argued that this regulation is too excessive. Therefore, it is suggested that the law be reformed to allow such a self-dealing when the settlor or the beneficiary of the trust gives explicit permission to it after having been sufficiently notified about its contents. Thirdly, it is questionable whether the declaration of trust applies to a trust where the beneficiary of the life insurance becomes the trustee. The answer may be negative in the life insurance trust, but it seems safe to determine whether the declaration of trust is legal. The dominant opinion negates the validity of the declaration of trust under the current Korean law. It is suggested that the law need to be changed to allow it, on the ground that there is no sound basis justifying such a strict regulation.

보험업의 개념에 관한 연구

한기정(Ki Jeong Han) 한국보험법학회 2015 보험법연구 Vol.9 No.2

보험업을 경영하기 위해서는 금융위원회의 허가를 얻어야 하고 이를 위반하면 처벌을 받는다(보험업법 제4조 제1항, 제200조). 이러한 허가는 보험업이 갖는 단체성, 사회성 등으로 인해 국가와 사회경제생활에 미치는 영향을 고려하여 요구되는 것이다. 따라서 무엇이 보험업에 해당하는지를 정의할 필요가 있다. 보험업에 해당하지 않는 것이라면 그것을 경영하더라도 허가를 받지 않아도 되고 처벌의 대상이 되지도 않기 때문이다. 보험업의 개념은 상당부분을 해석에 의존하고 있는 상황이다. 보험업의 개념과 관련된 판례는 어느 정도 축적이 되어 있다. 이에 따르면 보험업이란 우연한 사고의 발생에 대한 경제적인 불안에 대비하는 것, 다수의 경제주체가 공동으로 비축금을 마련하는 것, 그리고 대수의 법칙을 응용한 확률계산에 의하여 급부와 반대급부의 균형을 유지하도록 하는 것이다. 그리고 판례는 보험사고의 종류, 보험료 지급시기, 비축금의 마련 방식, 보험금의 지급방식, 대수의 법칙을 응용한 확률계산 방식 등을 제한적이고 엄격한 것이 아니라 폭넓게 인정한다. 이것은 보험업이 갖는 단체성, 사회성 등으로 인해 국가와 국민생활에 미치는 영향이 크다는점을 고려한 것으로 보인다. 하지만 이외에도 보험업의 개념과 관련된 다른 쟁점들이 있다. 구체적으로는, 금전이 아닌 용역(service)도 보험급부에 해당할 수 있는지, 영업 전체의 주된 목적이 보험이 아닌 경우에도 이를 보험업으로 취급할 것인지, 용역제공자가 용역제공 여부에 일정한 재량을 갖고 있는 경우도 보험업으로 취급할 것인지, 또한 용역제공자의 재무건전성을 어느 정도 믿을만한 경우 보험업 허가를 면제할 수 있는지 등의 문제가 있다. 대법원 2014.05.29. 선고 2013도10457 판결은 위 쟁점들을 본격적으로 다루었다는 점에서 의의가 있다. 대상판결의 사건에서는 심각한 의료 상태가 발생한 가입자에게 긴급의료지원서비스를 제공하는 영업을 보험업 허가를 받지 않고 영위한 경우 보험업법 위반인지 여부가 다투어졌고, 이와 관련하여 위 쟁점들이 논의되었다. 위 쟁점들은 기존의 판례가 다루지않은 새로운 것일 뿐만 아니라 기존의 국내연구도 드문 상황이다. 대상판결이 내려진 이후대상판결의 결론(보험업법 위반이 아니라고 판시하였다)에 대체적으로 찬성하는 평석이 등장했다. 하지만, 대상판결은 대상사건의 주요 쟁점들과 관련하여 보험업의 범위를 부당하게 축소시켰다고 생각된다. 본 논문은 이러한 견지에서 위 쟁점별로 대상판결의 문제점을 지적했다. 그리고 위 쟁점들에 대한 상당한 판례, 문헌이 축적된 영국법과 미국법을 비교법으로 검토하였다. To run an insurance business, one needs permission from the Financial Services Commission(the Korean Insurance Business Act art 4(1), art 200). When this condition is not met, they are punished according to the law. This permission is required because of the influences insurance companies cause on the nation and the social and economic welfare of people due to the collective and public nature of the institution. Therefore, there is a need to specify what is included in the definition of an insurance company. When a business cannot be defined as an insurance one, they would not need a permission to manage it and they would also not be subject to any form of penalty. A major part of the concept of an insurance business relies on interpretation. The court decisions about the concept of insurance business have accumulated to a degree. According to them, an insurance business has its bases in preparing for any economic instability from an accident, many principal agents of economic activities arranging common reserve fund, maintaining the balance of payment and counter-payment by calculating the probabilities using the law of large numbers. And, cases have rather flexibly and extensively recognized insurance elements, that is, the sorts of accidents, the timing for paying premiums, the method of preparing common reserve fund and the method of calculating the probabilities applying the law of large numbers. They seem to have considered that the collectiveness and publicness of insurance business have a large effect on the nations and lives of people. However, there are other controversies concerned with the concept of insurance business. Specifically, they include whether services may be acceptable as a form of insurance cover, whether when the main purpose of the entire business lacks insurance elements, the ancillary insurance elements may be regarded as an insurance business, whether service providers who have a certain amount of discretion over providing services may be exempted from having to receive permission to run an insurance business, and whether the service providers who are evaluated as quite financially solid may be exempted from having to receive such a permission. The Supreme Court decision of 2013do10457 is significant in that it fully dealt with the above issues. In this case, there was an argument over whether it is illegal according to the Korean Insurance Business Act when a firm promises to provide emergency medical care to a member in case of serious medical conditions, and consequentially many of the above controversies were discussed. Not only were there no precedent cases that dealt with these issues, it was rare to find any existing thorough research regarding them. After judgement was passed, some opinions have been expressed that this firm was not against the law. However, the judgement is suggested to have unjustly minimized the boundaries of insurance business regarding the above issues. This paper has pointed out the problems of this judgement by discussing the above each issue from this perspective. In addition, for comparison this paper explores into laws in Britain and the U.S. where there are significantly more cases and comments considering the issues concerned.

미국법상 피보험이익으로서 이해관계의 종류에 관한 연구 : 법적 이해관계와 사실상 이해관계를 중심으로

한기정(Han, Ki Jeong) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2020 法學論文集 Vol.44 No.3

본고는 손해보험에서 피보험이익의 종류로서 법적 이해관계(legal expectation)와 사실상 이해관계(factual expectation)의 문제를 검토하려고 한다. 손해보험계약에서 피보험이익이 존재하지 않으면 해당 보험계약은 무효로 된다. 따라서 손해보험에서 피보험이익의 존부는 보험계약의 효력에 영향을 미치는 중요한 요소이다. 그런데 피보험이익의 존부와 밀접하게 관련되어 있는 쟁점이 법적 또는 사실상 이해관계의 문제이다. 피보험이익을 법적 이해관계에 한정할 것인지, 아니면 사실상 이해관계도 포함할 것인지에 따라 피보험이익의 존부는 달라지게 된다. 이는 단순한 이론상의 문제에 그치는 것이 아니라 실무상 자주 분쟁의 대상이 되고 있다는 점에서 깊이 있는 연구가 필요한 분야이다. 법적 또는 사실상 이해관계의 유형은 무엇인지, 그 유형별로 피보험이익을 어디까지 인정할 것인지가 법적 또는 사실상 이해관계의 문제에서 핵심적 쟁점에 해당한다. 그런데 우리나라는 이 문제에 관한 문헌 및 판례가 부족한 상태이다. 이와 달리, 미국법은 위와 같은 핵심적 쟁점에 대해 문헌과 판례가 상당히 집적되어 있다. 본고에서는 미국법상 문헌 및 판례에 나타난 법적 또는 사실상 이해관계의 문제를 물건보험과 관련해서 조사 및 분석해보고 우리나라에 주는 시사점을 검토해 보았다. 미국법은 피보험이익을 넓게 인정하고 있다는 점, 특히 법적 이해관계를 넓게 인정하고 있다는 점 등은 우리나라에 상당한 시사점을 준다고 볼 수 있다. 하지만 미국법이 사실상 이해관계 전체를 피보험이익으로 인정하지 않고 제한하는 경향이 있는데, 이는 바람직한 방향이 아니라고 사료된다. 생각건대, 피보험이익의 종류로서 법적 또는 사실상 이해관계의 문제는 보험의 효용성 또는 실용성의 관점에서 접근하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 직접적 또는 실질적인 경제적 이해관계라면 도박(wager)에 해당하지 않는 한 법적 이해관계인지 사실상 이해관계인지를 묻지 않고 피보험이익을 인정할 필요가 있다. 어떤 보험계약이 도박에 해당하는 경우는 경제적 이해관계가 없음에도 보험사고의 발생을 이유로 보험금을 지급하거나 경제적 이해관계가 존재하더라도 그 가액을 초과하여 보험금을 지급하기로 약정된 경우이다. 이러한 도박에 해당하지 않는 한 피보험이익을 널리 인정하면 보험의 효용성 또는 실용성이 높아지는 효과가 생긴다. This paper examines the problem of legal expectations and factual expectations as kinds of insurable interest in property insurance. The absence of insurable interest in indemnity insurance renders the insurance contract void. Accordingly, the presence of insurable interest is an essential requirement in indemnity insurance since it affects the validity of the insurance contract. The issue of legal expectations and factual expectations is closely related to the presence or absence of insurable interest. It is because its presence or absence depends on whether to limit insurable interest to legal expectations or to include factual expectations. This is not a mere theoretical subject, but a matter of legal disputes between concerned parties that requires deeper study. The types of legal and factual expectations and the extent to which they can be included as part of insurable interest in each of those types are the key points of discussion. Currently, research and cases on this topic are lacking in Korea. Conversely, American Law has accumulated a significant amount of research and cases on this issue. This paper analyzes the problem of legal and factual expectations in property insurance according to American cases and research to draw conclusions on possible implications for Korean Law. The fact that American Law recognizes a broad concept of insurable interest, especially considering legal expectations, can lead to meaningful suggestions for Korea. However, American Law inclines to limit the scope of factual expectations that can be included as insurable interest which seems to be an undesirable direction. It is more advisable to approach the problem of legal and factual expectations as a matter of utility or practicality of insurance. If an economic expectation is direct or substantial and does not constitute a wager, there is a need to accept it as insurable interest, regardless of whether it is legal or factual.

자동차손해배상보장법상의 운행의 개념에 관한 연구

한기정 ( Ki Jeong Han ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2008 서울대학교 法學 Vol.49 No.3

The concept of operating the automobile prescribed by the Automobile Indemnity Guarantee Act(AIGT), which is related with the ambit of protecting the automobile victim, is controversial in its interpretation among academics and lawyers. This paper seeks to make a critical and analytical approach about this significant issue as follows. Firstly, it is necessary to elucidate the reason why the concept of operating the automobile is stipulated in the AIGT. This task could be successfully done by determining which should take prior consideration in deciding the concept of operating the automobile among the strict liability in the art. 3 of the AIGT, the compulsory liability insurance in the art. 5 of the AIGT, and the obligation of the automobile insurer in the art. 726-2 of the Commercial Code. Secondly, the concept of operating the automobile needs to be discussed according to the types of risks caused, the subject causing such risks, and the action causing such risks respectively. This paper concludes that the automobile operator`s strict liability in the art. 3 of the AIGT should take precedence in deciding the concept of operating the automobile other than the compulsory liability insurance in the art. 5 of the AIGT, and the obligation of the automobile insurer in the art. 726-2 of the Commercial Code, that the concept of operating the automobile should be interpreted as the action of using or managing parts or the whole of the automobile`s own devices for technical or traffic accidents to occur regardless of the purpose of the use or management.

영국법상 보험계약조건에 대한 연구

한기정 ( Ki Jeong Han ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2009 서울대학교 法學 Vol.50 No.1

This article deals with English law relating to insurance contract terms, which is often referred to for a comparative research in Korea. English insurance contract terms are regarded as various, and considerably harsh and strict upon the insured. In particular, the warranty and the clause limiting the risk are particularly harsh and strict according to the current English law thereabout. However, the recent trend of protecting financial consumers, and the necessity for adjusting the existing law to the change of insurance contract circumstances have prompted a severe criticism against the favor of the current law for the insurer. It is not surprising that the English Law Commission published the working paper in 2006 and the consultation paper in 2007 for the purpose of reforming the law about the warranty and the clause limiting the risk, and are now preparing for the final report. This article analyses and evaluates the current English law and the above working paper by the English Law Commission, and finds their implications for the Korean law thereon. This article concludes as follows. Firstly, the above working paper suggests that the requirements and the effect of insurance contract terms be differentiated according to their kinds and the sorts of insureds such as the retail insured or the business insured. This desirable proposal seems also applicable to the Korean law which does not recognise it. Secondly, the above working paper also suggests that the insurer can be exempted from its liability only when the breach of an insurance contract term is causally connected to the loss. However, regarding the level of causal connection it does not require `cause the loss`, but `increase the risk` or `contribute the loss`. It might be said that this requirement gives little help to the protection of the insured, and therefore needs to be reconsidered.

보험약관대출의 법적 성격에 관한 연구 -대법원 2007. 9. 28. 선고 2005다15598 판결을 중심으로-

한기정 ( Ki Jeong Han ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2008 서울대학교 法學 Vol.49 No.4

As policy loan is based on the policy itself not but on the statutory law, its legal nature depends on cases and theories. The Korean Supreme Court recently decided a case (SC 2005da15598) holding its legal nature as a prepayment of surrender value, which reversed its previous view of a money loan contract. The dominant view of academics was the same as the case before the SC 2005da1 5598, but after this new decision the argument for money loan became strong. The judges of the Supreme Court discussed and elaborated the legal nature of policy loan thoroughly, being divided into the majority opinion, the dissenting opinion, and the supplementary opinion. However, the current cases and theories could be criticised in that they determine the legal nature in a transcendent and monolithic way with the result that the law is inconsistent with the practice. It needs to be pointed out that policy loan is just a contract between the insurer and the policyholder without being subject to any statutory intervention. Therefore its legal nature should be decided in an empirical and individual way by reference to the contents and aims of a policy loan contract, the process leading to its conclusion, and the parties` intents thereon so on. To decide the legal nature in a transcendent and monolithic way seems to disregard the real practice where policy loans featuring money loan or prepayment of surrender value coexist. It is suggested that the former should be regarded as a money loan contract while the latter as a prepayment of surrender value. It is undesirable that SC 2005da15598 held the legal nature of a policy loan featuring money loan as a prepayment of surrender value. If a specific policy loan is held as a money loan contract, it is significant to recognize and protect a close relationship between the policy loan and the surrender value. It is suggested that the theory of `flawed assets` supported by the English courts may suitably be applicable to such a relationship.

부동산 매매와 피보험이익에 관한 소고

한기정 ( Ki Jeong Han ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2010 서울대학교 法學 Vol.51 No.4

This article deals with legal issues of insurable interests of a vendor and a purchaser in the sale of real estate. Where the purchaser of a real estate has not obtained its legal title from the vendor but has the right to use it and profit from it, legal issues arise as follows: ① whether or not the vendor or the purchaser has insurable interests, ② if so, what their contents and value are, ③ how much insurance money the vendor or the purchaser may claim, and ④ when the vendor and purchaser are respectively insured by different insurers, what the relationship between those insurers is. This article explores those legal issues contained in the Supreme Court case of 2009da43355. The conclusions of this article are follows. Firstly, when the purchaser without the legal title of the real estate did not enter not the vendor`s name but his one as an insured and its owner in the application form in contracting a fire insurance for the real estate, unless circumstances otherwise indicate, the contract should be interpreted as the purchaser as an insured having concluded a fire policy insuring his own insurable interest which he has as a purchaser. Secondly, the purchaser possessing the real estate, even though he has not acquired its legal title, should be interpreted as holding insurable interest equivalent to that of the legal owner, because as least as far as the internal relationship with the vendor is concerned such a purchaser is entitled to its use and profit from it, and because the purchaser bears the economic risk of loss. Finally, when the vendor and the purchaser are respectively insured, each can recover from his own insurer to the extent of actual loss which occurred to him. The vendor`s right of recovery may be limited to the amount for which he has not been paid, while the purchaser`s one to the amount for which he has already paid. Responsibility should be allocated between the vendor`s insurer and the purchaser`s insurer according the legal principle of the dual insurance.