기록물 폐기평가 제도 개선방안에 관한 연구 - A시청 기록관 폐기평가 사례를 중심으로 -

김명훈 한국기록관리학회 2015 한국기록관리학회지 Vol.15 No.4

Destruction appraisal system improved with the enactment of the 1999 Public Records Management Act has the strategic concepts to prevent loss of important records with prohibiting the destruction in creation organization of records. But destruction appraisal carried out in record center realistically has the big difference with destruction appraisal system intended by Public Records Management Act. Therefore this article intends to explore the importance of destruction appraisal system through a review of the record appraisal system, and investigates operation status of destruction appraisal system in record center and operational issues. And it intends to explore scheme for practical application of destruction appraisal system based on actual cases of destruction appraisal which operates as a model. 1999년 기록관리법의 제정과 함께 정비된 폐기평가 제도는 처리과에서의 폐기를 금지하고 보존기간 책정제도를 보완해 중요기록물의 유실을 방지할 수 있는 전략적 개념을 지니고 있다. 하지만 실제 기록관에서 수행되는 폐기평가의 현실은 기록관리법에서 의도하는 이러한 취지와는 현실적으로 큰 간극을 지닌다. 이에 본고에서는 기록물 평가제도에 대한 검토를 통해 현행 우리나라 폐기평가 제도의 중요성을 살펴본 다음, 현행 폐기평가 제도의 운영현황과 실제 운영상의 문제점을 고찰하였다. 이어 폐기평가 제도를 모범적으로 운영하고 있다고 판단되는 실제 사례를 기반으로 향후 우리나라 폐기평가 제도의 현실적 적용을 위한 방안을 모색하였다.

묘역지석묘의 유물 훼기와 장송의례

강민석 한국고고학회 2023 한국고고학보 Vol.- No.126

This paper sought to examine in detail the rites of the final stages of the funeral rituals that took place at dolmens with surrounding stone platforms, by classifying and analyzing the artifacts excavated from these stone platforms. First, the artifacts and the contexts of their discovery were examined in order to see if traces of ritual could be identified from those artifacts excavated from stone platforms. As a result, in the case of the bottom part of coarse plain pottery, it was possible to confirm the presence of striking points, which were ‘⋃’-shaped, which extended from the center to the base of the vessel. In addition, it was possible to identify that polished stone daggers had been deliberately broken and the dagger body and hilt separately buried in the upper and lower parts of the stone platform. It could also be observed that, when found in association with settlements, the area where the artifacts were concentrated within the stone platform was located towards the direction of the residential spaces. It was interpreted that this phenomenon may be associated with the intention to prevent the sprit of deceased from returning to the realm of the living. Such a notion was thought to have originated from the perception of the people of the time who prayed for the deceased’s safe journey to the afterworld. Finally, the purpose the artifacts (prior to their destruction) during funeral rituals was considered. Coarse plain pottery accounted for the largest number of artifacts excavated from the stone platforms but a close examination of their form revealed that most of the vessels consisted of beaker-shaped pottery, which was most commonly used for cooking. With reference to the records on the funeral tradition of the Yayoi period, it was proposed that the ‘drink together and eat together (共飮共食)’ ritual may have taken place. It was therefore inferred that the artifacts excavated from the stone platform had been used in ‘drink together and eat together’ rituals prior to being destroyed. Based on the significance of the ritual, along with the fact that a large number of artifacts were found at such dolmens, it was recognized that the dolmens where such rituals had taken place could be distinguished from the other dolmens. It was suggested, by referring to ethnographic examples, that the rituals may have also been intended for differentiation from other family groups.

보험계약자 측의 부당한 행위와 보험계약 해지 가부 -대법원 2020. 10. 29. 선고 2019다267020 판결에 대한 평석을 중심으로-

최병규 ( Choi Byeong Gyu ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2021 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.48

보험가입이 가능한 위험은 손실을 인위적이거나 의도가 개입되지 않은 순수한 우연적인 것이어야 한다. 보험계약관계는 대부분 장기간 계속된다. 그렇기 때문에 계약을 해지할 수 있는 사유가 중요하다. 원래 보험자는 일정한 사유가 있는 경우에 계약을 해지할 수 있으며, 보험계약자는 보험사고 전에는 언제든지 계약을 해지할 수 있고 사고 이후에도 일정한 경우 해지를 할 수 있다. 그런데 상법 보험편에 의한 것이 아니라 민법 제2조 신의성실원칙에 의하여 보험자가 보험계약을 해지할 수 있는지가 문제된다. 최근에 대법원은 통원치료가 가능한데도 장기간 입원해 부당하게 보험금을 받아내는 이른바 ‘허위 입원’ 보험가입자를 상대로 보험사가 보험계약을 해지한 것은 정당하다고 보았다. 대법원은 피보험자가 통원치료가 가능한 질병임에도 그 정도를 과장하거나 증상을 속이는 방법으로 입원치료를 받았다면 보험계약 약관에 따라 보험사가 보험계약을 해지할 수 있는 사유에 해당한다고 보았다. 즉 대법원은 피보험자는 보험계약의 기초가 되는 신뢰관계를 파괴해 보험계약의 존속을 기대할 수 없는 중대한 사유가 있다고 보았다. 또한 대법원은 보험계약은 윤리성과 선의성이 강하게 요구되는 특성으로 당사자 사이에 강한 신뢰관계를 요구하고, 신뢰관계를 파괴하는 당사자의 부당한 행위가 보험계약의 주계약이 아닌 특약에 관한 것이라 하더라도, 행위가 중대해 보험계약 전체가 영향을 받고 계약 자체를 유지할 것을 기대할 수 없다면 해지 효력은 보험계약 전부에 미친다고 판시하였다. 우리 상법은 보험계약자 측을 보호하기 위하여 보험자가 계약을 해지할 수 있는 사유를 한정하고 있다. 그리고 상법 제663조에 의하여 상법 보험편 전체가 편면적 강행규정으로 되어 있다. 당사자 간의 신뢰관계가 현저하게 파괴된 경우에는 민법 제2조 신의칙 법리에 의하여 계약을 해지하는 것이 가능하다고 보아야 한다. 독일의 경우에도 신의칙 위반, 신뢰관계 파괴의 경우 독일 민법 제314조에 의하여 계약을 해지하는 것이 가능하다고 보고 있다. 보험제도는 사고의 우연성, 선의성을 중요한 특징으로 한다. 보험제도를 선의로 이용하지 아니하고 자신이 아픈 증상을 속여 부당하게 보험금을 지급받은 경우에는 보험금 지급을 거절하거나 이미 지급한 보험금을 부당이득으로 반환을 청구할 수 있다. 그에서 더 나아가 계약을 해지하는 것이 가능하다고 보아야 한다. 이때 그 근거가 약관에서 보험사고를 고의로 야기한 경우에는 보험자가 계약을 해지할 수 있다는 규정을 둔 경우에는 그 약관 규정이 되고, 그렇지 않은 경우에는 민법 제2조를 근거로 계약을 해지할 수 있다고 하여야 한다. 그리고 민법 제2조를 근거로 보험계약을 해지하는 경우에도 상법 제663조, 약관의 규제에 관한 법률 제9조 제2항 위반은 아니라고 하여야 한다. 그런데 ‘질병으로 인하여 입원치료를 받게 되는 것’이 보험사고인 경우 통원치료가 가능한 질병임에도 그 정도를 과장하거나 증상을 속이는 방법으로 입원치료를 받아 보험금을 받은 경우에는 고의로 보험사고를 야기한 경우라고 보아야 할 것이므로 그 경우에는 민법 제2조가 아니라 하더라도, 고의사고 야기시 보험계약을 해지할 수 있다고 하는 약관의 규정에 의하여도 계약을 해지할 수 있다고 하여야 한다. 앞으로 민법에 의거한 보험계약 해지에 대한 보다 더 심도 있는 연구가 필요하다. Risks that can be insured must be either non-artificial or purely accidental without intentions involved. Most insurance contract relations last a long time. That is why the reason for canceling the contract is important. The original insurer may terminate the contract if there is a certain reason, and the policyholder may terminate the contract at any time before the insurance accident, and in certain cases after the accident. However, the question is whether the insurer can terminate the insurance contract according to Article 2 of the Korean Civil Act, not due to the Commercial Act(insurance contract law). The recent Supreme Court ruling on the insurer’s unfair behavior saw it as possible for the insurer to terminate the contract. That is, if there is a serious reason for not expecting the continuation of the contract due to the destruction of the trust relationship that forms the basis of the contract due to an unfair act of one of the parties during the existence of the insurance contract, the other party terminates the contract and has its effect in the future. I saw that it could be destroyed. If the policyholder’s side claims insurance money for payment of inpatient treatment or has been paid, but it is found that all or part of the inpatient treatment is not necessary, the reason for receiving inpatient treatment and the need for inpatient treatment for the purpose of illegally obtaining insurance money Confidence that is the basis of the insurance contract due to unfair claims or receipt of insurance payments by the policyholder by comprehensively considering various circumstances, such as whether or not hospitalized, knowing that there is no need for hospitalization, the number of days of hospitalization without the need for hospitalization or the amount of insurance premium The insurer may terminate the insurance contract if it is admitted that the relationship is destroyed and there is a serious reason for the insurance contract to not survive, and the contract will lose its effect in the future. However, since this right of termination is based on Article 2 of the Civil Act, which established the principle of good faith and is naturally premised on the relationship of insurance contracts, it is obligatory to explain to the insurer in advance or that the insurer exercise the right to terminate it is regulated in Article 663 of the Commercial Act or the terms and conditions. The Supreme Court’s position is that it cannot be considered as a violation of Article 9, No. 2 of the Act on the In order to protect the policyholder’s side, our commercial law restricts the reasons for the insurer to cancel the contract. In addition, according to Article 663 of the Commercial Act, the entire commercial law insurance policy is enforced on one area. If the trust relationship between the parties is significantly damaged, it should be considered that it is possible to terminate the contract in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Act. In the case of Germany, it is considered possible to terminate the contract in accordance with Article 314 of the German Civil Code(BGB) in case of violation of new rules or damage to trust. The insurance system is characterized by accidental accident and goodwill. If the insurance system is not used in good faith and is unfairly paid by fooling himself into a symptom of being sick, he or she may refuse to pay the insurance payment or request the return of the insurance money already paid as unfair gain. Further, it should be seen that it is possible to terminate the contract. At this time, if the basis for the insurance accident is intentionally caused in the terms and conditions, if the insurer stipulates that the contract can be terminated, it becomes the provisions of the terms and conditions. do. In addition, even if the insurance contract is terminated on the basis of Article 2 of the Civil Act, it must be said that it is not a violation of Article 663 of the Commercial Act and Article 9 (2) of the Act on Regulation of Standard Contract Terms and Conditions. However, if the ‘inpatient treatment due to a disease’ is an insurance accident, even though it is a disease that can be treated in an outpatient hospital, it should be regarded as a case of deliberately causing an insurance accident when receiving insurance payments by exaggerating the extent of the disease or by cheating symptoms. In that case, even if it is not Article 2 of the Civil Act, it should be said that the contract can be terminated according to the provisions of the terms and conditions that the insurance contract can be terminated in the event of an intentional accident. In the future, more in-depth research is needed on the termination of insurance contracts pursuant to Civil Act.