면책불허가사유 중 설명의무위반 행위

남대하 사법발전재단 2016 사법 Vol.1 No.36

Articles 321, 564(1)1, and 658 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that a debtor is obligated to explain about bankruptcy-related matters upon the request of a trustee, and stipulates that breach of such duty to explain constitutes a ground for not granting immunity, in order to ensure that bankruptcy proceedings go smoothly and that all property comprises the bankruptcy estate. In practice, trustees are generally appointed to handle bankruptcy cases. Oftentimes a trustee, while examining a debtor’s assets, existence or absence of grounds for disapproval of immunity, etc., opined that immunity shall not be granted as the debtor breached the duty to explain. In such cases, the key issue is how to interpret “breach of duty to explain,” which constitutes a ground for not permitting immunity. Determining whether a situation falls under “breach of duty to explain” is a difficult task as specific standards have not been established. This paper first looks at ways of interpreting relevant provisions as to the “breach of duty to explain” under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. It then goes on to broadly examine contentious issues by classifying the requirements for breaching duty of explanation as follows: (i) a person who has the duty to explain does not provide the necessary explanation on bankruptcy-related matters upon request; (ii) a person who has the duty to explain omits or provides false explanation upon request; and (iii) a person who has the duty to explain is not cooperative in bankruptcy proceedings without any justifiable reason. However, a prudent approach is called for as to determining whether the duty to explain was breached since an act of breach constitutes a ground for disapproval of immunity and, more importantly, establishes a bankruptcy offence. Therefore, it seems reasonable not to grant immunity only in cases where it is apparent that a person having the duty to explain does not cooperate in bankruptcy proceedings without any justifiable reason. Furthermore, immunity should be granted as long as a person having the duty to explain did not provide false explanation even though it was insufficient. In order to curb disputes related to the breach of duty to explain, having a trustee request explanation on necessary matters in writing and submitting the written request within a fixed period may be helful. 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제564조 제1항 제1호, 제658조, 제321조는 파산절차의 원활한 진행과 파산재단의 적절한 형성을 위하여 파산관재인의 요청에 따라 채무자가 파산에 관한 설명을 해야 할 의무를 부과하고 있고, 채무자가 이를 위반할 경우 면책불허가사유로 삼고 있다. 실무상 현재 대부분의 파산선고 사건은 파산관재인을 선임하여 진행하고 있는데, 파산관재인이 채무자의 재산상황, 면책불허가사유의 존재 여부 등을 조사하면서 채무자가 설명의무위반에 해당하는 행위를 하였다는 이유로 면책불허가 의견을 개진하는 사건이 다수 있다. 이 경우 면책불허가사유 중 설명의무위반 행위를 어떻게 해석할지가 고민되는 경우가 종종 있다. 설명의무위반 행위에 관하여는 구체적인 기준이 정립되어 있지 않아 개별적인 사안에서 설명의무위반 행위에 해당하는지 여부를 판단하기가 쉬운 것만은 아니다. 이 논문은 설명의무위반에 관한 법 조문을 어떻게 해석할 것인가에 관하여 먼저 살펴보았다. 그리고 설명의무위반의 구체적 요건을 요청주체 및 상대방, 요청방법 및 대상, 파산에 관하여 필요한 설명일 것, 설명을 하지 아니하거나 허위의 설명을 할 것, 정당한 사유가 없을 것으로 나누어 설명의무위반과 관련하여 제기될 수 있는 쟁점들에 대하여 폭넓게 검토를 해 보았다. 면책불허가사유로서의 설명의무위반 행위는 파산범죄를 구성하므로 신중한 판단을 요한다. 따라서 설명의 의무가 있는 자가 정당한 사유 없이 파산절차에 협력하지 않고 그 태도가 현저한 경우에 한하여 설명의무위반의 면책불허가사유가 된다고 봄이 상당하고, 설명의 의무가 있는 자가 설명한 내용이 불충분하다고 하더라도 허위의 설명을 한 것으로 볼 수 없는 이상 설명의무위반을 이유로 면책을 불허하는 것은 타당하지 않다고 생각한다. 설명의무위반과 관련하여 문제가 파생되지 않도록 하기 위해서는 파산관재인이 채무자에게 파산에 관하여 필요한 설명만을 그 사항을 구체적으로 특정하여 제출기한을 정해서 서면으로 요청함이 바람직하다.

보험자 설명의무 및 약관설명의무의 내용분석과개정방향에 관한 연구

박세민 ( Se Min Park ) 한국상사판례학회 2015 상사판례연구 Vol.28 No.1

Both Germany and Japan have recently revised the insurance contract law, focussing on expanding and reinforcement of insurer``s duty to provide information in making insurance contract. This is the tendency of modernization of insurance law. In Korea, there is no specific insurer``s duty to provide information. However, it can be replaced by the insurer``s duty to explain. The insurer``s duty to explain and insurer``s duty to explain the clause of insurance are respectively prescribed in the Insurance Business Act and Insurance Law Part of Commercial Law and other relevant legislation. The contents of these laws are somewhat overlapped and the effects of breach of the duty to explain are different from each other depending on the legislation. The contents of the provisions as regarding the insurer``s duty to explain, which are related with the rights and duties in insurance contract, are required to be combined together, making a single provision about the insurer``s duty to explain including the insurer``s duty to explain clause of insurance in the part of insurance law in Korean Commercial Law. To do this, the deletion of the relevant provisions in Insurance Business Act is precondition. Otherwise, the insurer could be doubly regulated. At the same time, the amendment of the provision of insurer``s duty to explain clause of insurance is strongly required. First of all, the time to perform the duty to explain the clause of insurance should be changed to the time of subscription. This is for the protection of insurance consumers. Also the insurer``s duty to explain should be recognized throughout the period of insurance contract, both before making the insurance contract and after making the insurance contract. The starting time of reckoning of period of exclusion for the policyholder``s right of cancellation should be changed to the time when the policyholder receives the insurance policy. It is right to extend the period for exercise of the policyholder``s right of cancellation to 3 month. However, it seems reasonable to make some exceptions to this extension for the short term insurance contract within 1 year and the mandatory insurance by law and regulation. In addition, it is required to explicitly proscribe the decision of Korean Supreme Court, which the provisions of the clause of insurance which are not explained by the insurer are not included in the provisions of the contract as effect of breach of the duty to explain clause of insurance, in order to effectively cut off the unnecessary dispute between the insurers and consumers.

보험자의 보험약관 설명의무에 관한 고찰

장정애 아주대학교 법학연구소 2016 아주법학 Vol.10 No.3

전통적인 보험판매는 보험설계사가 회사나 가정을 방문하여 보험의 내용을 설명하고 계약을 체결하는 형식으로 이루어졌으나, 최근에는 홈쇼핑 등 다양한 방식으로 변화하고 있다. 이에 따라 보험계약자는 정보비대칭한 상황에서 보험자의 일방적인 설명과 정보제공에 전적으로 의존하고 있다. 특히 마케팅기법의 발달로 보험을 체결할 마음이 전혀 없던 소비자들도 홈쇼핑 쇼호스트의 화려한 언변으로 순간 계약을 체결하고 싶은 마음이 생기고 실제로 계약을 체결하는 경우가 종종 발생하게 된다. 하지만 이러한 보험사들의 과다 경쟁으로 인하여 불완전판매의 문제는 날이 갈수록 증가하고 있다. 특히 100세 시대를 앞둔 상황에서 노후설계를 위한 보험상품은 끊임없이 나오고 있고, 저금리 시대에 비과세 보험상품은 매우 매력적으로 보험소비자에게 다가오고 있다. 하지만, 이런 상품들의 특징은 10년 이상의 장기계약이고 보험료가 높을 뿐만 아니라 보험사고에 지급되는 보험금마저 사고유형에 따라 천차만별이라서 보험계약자들은 실제로 자신이 어떤 보장을 받고 있는지조차 모르는 경우가 허다하다. 따라서 보험계약자는 좀 더 심사숙고하여 계약을 체결할 필요가 있고, 이에 대한 대전제로 보험자의 올바른 설명의무가 성실하고 충분하게 선행되어야 한다. 보험계약의 내용에 무지한 보험계약자를 보호하고, 선의성과 공공성이라는 특징을 갖고 있는 보험을 건전하게 관리․유지하기 위하여 보험약관에 대한 규제는 반드시 필요하다. 우리나라는 상법, 보험업법, 자본시장법, 약관규제법 등에 설명의무를 명시하고 있으나, 설명의무의 대상인 중요한 내용이 무엇인지 불명확한 상황이고, 그 이행시점도 현실과 거리가 있는 규정일 뿐만 아니라 설명의무 위반에 따른 효과도 실효성이 떨어진다. 이러한 현행 설명의무 규정의 이행상 문제점을 개선하기 위하여 보험자의 정보제공의무 규정의 추가를 통해 중요내용 여부의 판단으로 인한 운영상의 어려움을 해소하고, 최대선의 원칙의 도입을 통해 설명의무 이행의 실효성을 높이고 보험계약자를 실질적으로 보호하는 방안을 모색하였다. 또한 적합성 원칙의 확대를 통하여 적극적인 보험계약자의 태도를 유도하고 보험자의 설명의무 이행을 보다 명확히 실천할 수 있도록 하여야 한다. 나아가 설명의무위반의 효과를 극대화하기 위해 취소권과 철회권의 기간개시를 설명의무와 연계시키고, 징벌적 법정책임을 도입하며, 설명의무가 면제되는 경우를 유형화하여 통합적으로 규정할 필요가 있다고 생각한다. Traditional insurance sales used to occur with insurance planners visiting offices or homes and explaining the insurance terms & conditions and contracting with the consumer. However, today, homeshopping and other forms of insurance sales is on the rise. As such, insurance policyholders are exposed to information asymmetry with extensive reliance on insurer’s one-sided explanation and provision of information. With the development of advanced marketing techniques, consumers who did not have an intention to buy insurance are also instantaneously tempted to buy and contract insurance products, with the eloquent show hosts from homeshopping channels. However, this kind of excessive competition by insurance companies have resulted in problems in incomplete sales which is increasing. With humans now living up to 100 years of age, old age planning for insurance products are constantly increasing and with low interest, tax free insurance products are seen as extremely attractive to insurance consumers. However, these products require more than 10 years of long term contract and the insurance premium is quite high. Also, the insurance money/benefit differs infinitely by accident categories and as a result, insurance consumer at times are not aware of what kind of coverage he/she contracted. Therefore, insurance contractors need to carefully contemplate the contract before they sign, and the pre-requisite would be for insurers to faithfully and sufficiently act on the duty to explain beforehand. To protect insurance contractors’ ignorance in insurance contract terms and conditions, and for the sake of good faith and public interest that the insurance possess and to manage and maintain insurance, regulation on insurance clause is without fail required. In Korea, Commercial law, Insurance law, Capital Market law and Contract Terms Regulation act states the duty to explain, however, it is not clear as to what the important aspect of the duty to explain is. Also, the fulfillment time of the regulation has a gap with the reality and the breach of the duty to explain lack effectiveness. To improve the fulfillment of the current regulation of the duty to explain, the addition of the regulation of insurer’s information duty is required to settle operational difficulties by deciding on the important elements. The principle of utmost good faith is also required for increasing the effectiveness of fulfillment of the duty to explain and to protect the insurance contractors. Expansion of suitability rule to induce aggressive insurance contractors as well as the precise fulfillment of insurer’s duty to explain must be practiced. Furthermore, to maximize the duty to explain, the beginning period of the right of rescission and the right of withdrawal should be aligned with the duty to explain. Punitive legal responsibility should also be adopted and the exemption of the duty to explain should be categorized and integrated.

독일 보험계약법상 보험자 정보제공의무 등의 내용 분석과 그 도입가능성에 관한 비판적 검토

박세민 ( Semin Park ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2017 고려법학 Vol.0 No.84

독일은 2008년 보험계약법을 개정하면서 정보제공의무, 상담의무, 안내(지시)의무 및 서면화 의무 등을 신설 또는 개정하였다. 또한 정보제공의 시기와 관련하여 기존의 증권모델에서 청약모델로 변경하였다. 이러한 개정작업은 보험소비자를 보호하기 위한 목적을 가지고 있다. 보험소비자 보호의 문제는 보험법 현대화 작업에서 매우 중요한 지위를 차지하고 있다. 우리나라 역시 보험소비자 보호는 보험업계 뿐만 아니라 보험감독당국의 주요 현안 문제가 되고 있다. 독일 보험계약법상의 정보제공의무 등을 우리나라에 도입하는 것을 염두해 두고 이들 정보제공의무나 상담의무 등에 대해 연구가 이루어지고 있다. 독일 보험계약법에서 정보제공의무 등을 명문화함으로써 보험소비자 보호의 문제를 부각시키고 이를 법적 의무화하는 것에 대한 장점이 분명 존재하는 것이 사실이다. 그러나 이들 의무 등은 본질적으로 볼 때 법적 의무로 규정되지 않더라도 보험계약의 최대선의의 원칙에 의해 이론적으로나 해석상 모두 인정될 수 있는 것으로 판단된다. 즉 독일 보험계약법에서 인정하고 있는 정보제공의무나 상담의무, 안내(지시)의무 및 서면화 의무는 그 내용의 기초가 보험계약의 최대선의성에 기초를 하고 있음을 부인할 수 없다. 오히려 이들 의무를 법적의무로 함으로써 보험자에게 지나치게 광범위하고 보험계약 체결에 직접적으로 영향을 끼치지 않는 사항에 대해서까지도 반드시 정보를 제공해야 하는 것으로 형식적으로 규정하는 것은 보험자의 경영 부담이 될 뿐만 아니라 사업비의 불가피한 증가를 가져와 보험료 인상으로 이어질 수 있어 결국 보험소비자에게 불이익한 결과를 야기할 수도 있다. 이번에 보험법 개정안이 우리 국회를 통과하면서 최대선의의 원칙 조문이 심의과정에서 누락된 것은 매우 아쉽다고 할 수 있다. 왜냐하면 보험계약의 최대선의 원칙 조항은 재판규범으로서의 역할도 하지만 또한 행위규범 및 해석의 판단기준이 될 수도 있기 때문이다. 최대 선의의 원칙을 통해 독일식의 정보제공의무 등을 어렵지 않게 인정할 수 있고 그 의무의 적용 범위도 합리적으로 해석할 수 있기 때문이다. 결론적으로 우리나라는 현행 약관설명의무 제도에 대한 개정작업을 통해 이를 설명의무로 확대하고 합리적인 범위에서 보험자의 정보제공의무를 수행할 수 있으며 상담의무나 안내의무 등은 최대선의의 원칙에 의해 그 효과를 달성할 수 있는 것으로 해석될 수 있으므로 독일의 보험자 정보제공의무제도의 도입이 반드시 필요한 것은 아니라 할 것이다. In 2008, the insurance contract law in Germany was revised, setting up the insurer`s duty to provide information, duty of consultation, duty of guidance and the duty to put in writing in relation to the insurance contract. In addition, the policy model was replaced by the subscription model as regarding the time of offering information. The purpose of this amendment was to protect the insurance consumer, which has become the main issue of modernization of insurance contract law in each country. Of course, in Korea, this issue also has been the main target for insurance industry and insurance supervisory authorities. Some articles have already been released about the insurer`s duty to provide information and duty of consultation etc in German insurance contract law, considering the possibility of introduction of these duties to Korean insurance laws. There might have some advantages in making the insurer`s duty to provide information and duty of consultation etc the legal duties by explicitly stipulating these duties in the insurance contract law like Germany, highlighting the issue of protection of insurance consumers. However, these duties can be theoretically recognized and accepted by the principle of utmost good faith in insurance contract in itself, without effort to make legal duties. It is because that the insurer`s duty to provide information, duty of consultation, duty of guidance and duty to put in writing are undisputedly based on the principle of uberrima fides in insurance contract. It may be thought that making them legal duties could put more burden on the insurer by too much expanding the range of these duties. Inevitably, the insurer is required to provide information which does not directly influence in making insurance contract. This insurer`s heavy burden in business management might lead the increase of cost of insurance product - insurance premium. This situation may eventually cause disadvantage to the insurance consumer. It is a shame that the article dealing with the principle of utmost good faith in the revised bill of Korean insurance contract law has been eliminated in the process of discussion by the Korean National Assembly. This erased article - principle of utmost good faith- may be used for conduct norms and a crucial criteria for interpretation of relevant legislation. With this principle of utmost good faith, the insurer`s duty to provide information etc prescribed in the German insurance contract law can be easily recognized in the process of interpretation, Also, the range of those duties can be reasonably construed based on this principle. In Korea, the article of the insurer`s duty to explain clause of insurance needs to be amended as quickly as possible. From this amendment, the insurer`s duty to explain clause of insurance should be expanded to the duty to explain information. With this revised insurer`s duty to explain information and with the principle of utmost good faith, the function of those duties in the German insurance contact law can be reasonably carried out in Korea. In conclusion, there is no hurry about introduction of those duties prescribed in the revised German insurance contract law to Korean insurance contract law.

부동산중개대상물확인・설명의무의 법률효과에 대한 고찰 — 일본 판례를 중심으로 —

이재웅,김영규 한국경영법률학회 2013 經營法律 Vol.23 No.2

The role of realtor is very important in a real estate transaction. Signing the real estate contract of sale is not an easy task the general public without the assistance of the experts into great detail to investigate and verify because of complex rights relationships, as well as process limitations in the real estate. Therefore, it is common to conclude the real estate contract of sale using the knowledge and experience of the specialist realtors who are expert in real estate transactions. Law for licensed real estate agent impose the verification of brokerage objects and the duty to explain on realtors when they deal in real estate for the benefit of the general public. Even though law for licensed real estate agent impose that relators must verify and explain about important matters on a deal when they were asked to mediation real estate sales for client and sign the contract of sale, if realtor violates the check real estate brokerage object and the duty of explain, the effect of private law is a problem related to characteristic of law for licensed real estate agent, that mean is whether their behavior is breach of duty on the deal or tort. In this paper, we classify the generated conflict which realtor is involved in conclusion of a contract and consider that the problem. We examine whether realtors are able to cancel the contract of real estate sale directly with the violation of the duty to explain and the verification of brokerage object or not, in this case, we also consider the relationship between contractual obligations and check brokerage object and the duty of explain. Moreover, if brokerage contractual relationship are existed between realtors and clients, realtors will be charged the fiduciary duty. therefore we also consider the relationship between fiduciary duty and the verification of brokerage object and the duty of explain. Furthermore, if realtors breach the verification of brokerage object and the duty of explain in case brokerage contractual relationship are existed between brokers and clients case, we can demand damages for default. However, in this case, law doesn't be taken constitution of law by default liability and law is taken the constitution of law by tort liability. we also consider what makes different conclusion depending on the constitution of law.

보험계약자의 ʻ약관 읽을 의무ʼ에 관한 연구 - 미국에서의 Duty to Read 원칙에 대한 논의를 중심으로 -

김원각 한국상사법학회 2024 商事法硏究 Vol.43 No.2

금융감독원의 민원통계를 보면 보험분쟁, 그중에서도 설명의무에 관한 분쟁이 특히 많다. 보험거래 실무상 거래 상대방은 약관의 내용에 대해 충분히 설명을 들었다는 자필서명 또는 날인을 하게 되는데도 불구하고 보험계약자 측이 보험자 측의 설명의무 위반을 주장하면서 법률다툼으로 이어진다. 법률상 서명·날인이 계약의 성립요건이거나 일정한 행위의 효력발건요건이 됨을 고려하면 적어도 자신이 서명하였음을 인정하는 한 서명 또는 기명날인자는 이에 대한 책임을 지는 것이 옳다는 지적이 잇따른다. 보험자에게 약관규제법, 보험법, 보험업법, 소비자보호법 등에서 설명의무를 부과하는 우리나라와는 달리 미국에서는 보험자의 설명의무보다 보험계약자의 약관 읽을 의무를 통하여 보험분쟁을 억제하려는 노력을 하고 있다. 미국의 약관 읽을 의무는 법에 규정되거나 약관에 포함된 것은 아니지만 미국판례는 약관을 읽지 않은 계약당사자에게 불리한 판결을 내리고 있다. 즉, 보험계약자는 약관을 수령한 후 이를 읽어보지 아니하였다고 하더라도 계약의 내용을 충분히 이해한 것으로 추정되어 계약의 효력을 부인할 수 없다는 것이다. 법원에서는 이를 단정적 추정으로 묘사하고 있다. 약관 읽을 의무는 자기의무로서 보험계약자는 계약서에 명시된 조건과 조항을 준수할 법적 책임이 있고, 이를 이해하지 못하였다는 것을 이유로 하여 계약을 무효화하거나 변경할 수 없다. 이 의무를 위반하였다 하여 손해배상의무가 발생하지 않으나 의무 위반에 따른 위험은 본인이 감수하여야 한다. 미국에서도 약관 읽을 의무에 대한 격렬한 논쟁이 있었다. 이에 대한 긍정론에서는 보험 약관해석을 둘러 싼 다툼을 줄일 방책으로 약관 읽을 의무를 긍정하고, 보험계약자의 서명이 약관에 대한 구속력의 근거라고 한다. 또한 약관 읽을 의무를 통해 계약자 동등대우의 원칙을 실현하게 되고 거래의 신속성과 계약의 안정성 및 예측 가능성을 높이며 이 의무를 통해 보험자 측의 기망행위를 발견하고 시정할 기회를 준다는 것을 이유로 든다. 이에 반해 읽을 의무에 회의적인 입장은 보험계약이 부합계약으로서 보험자와 계약자 사이 정보 비대칭성이 심각한데 서명을 이유로 약관을 모두 이해한 것으로 다루는 것이 매우 가혹하다고 한다. 이와 함께 단정적 추정의 결과 보험자 측의 잘못이 은폐될 수 있다는 점을 지적한다. 법원에서는 일반적으로 소비자들이 계약 내용을 읽지 않는다는 사실에도 불구하고 읽을 의무를 인정해 왔다. 다만 약관 읽을 의무를 완전히 면제하는 것은 아니지만 읽을 의무가 있어도 소비자가 불공정한 증권상 언어에 구속되어야 할 필요가 없다며 최근 이를 완화하여 보험계약자 보호를 꾀하고 있다. 각 주 법원에 의하여 넓게 인정되는 약관 읽을 의무는 합리적 기대의 법리에 의하여 수정된다. 합리적 기대원칙은 보험계약자가 합리적 기대를 가진 경우, 약관이 이를 부인할 수 없음을 의미한다. 미국 다수 주의 법원은 보험계약의 형평성과 공정성을 제공하기 위하여 합리적 기대원칙을 적용하고 있다. 현실적으로 보험계약자가 길고 복잡한 보험증권을 읽지 않고, 보험계약자가 보험증권을 읽어도 그 내용을 완전히 이해할 수 없기 때문이다. 본 원칙은 자신이 협상하지 않았고, 읽지 않았으며, 아마도 읽었더라면 이해하지 못했을 보험계약의 특정 조항으로부터 보험계약... According to the Financial Supervisory Serviceʼs statistics on complaints, there are many insurance disputes, especially those related to the duty of explanation. In insurance transactions, the policyholder claims that the insurer violated the duty of explanation, despite the fact that the policyholder signs or seals that he or she has been fully informed of the contents of the policy, leading to legal disputes. Considering that signatures or seals are prerequisites for the validity or effectiveness of certain acts, it is argued that those who acknowledge their own signatures or seals should be held accountable. Unlike Korea, which imposes a duty of explanation on insurers in the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act, Insurance Act, and Insurance Business Act, the United States tries to deter insurance disputes through the policyholderʼs obligation to read the policy rather than the insurerʼs duty of explanation. In contrast to South Korea, where insurers are required to fulfill a duty to explain under laws such as the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, the Insurance Law, and the Insurance Business Act, the United States attempts to reduce insurance disputes by imposing a ʻʻduty to readʼʼ on policyholders rather than focusing on the insurerʼs duty to explain. While the duty to read is not stipulated by law or included in the terms, U.S. case law often renders unfavorable judgments against contracting parties who do not read the terms. It is presumed that policyholders fully understand the contract even if they do not read the terms after receiving them, and thus they cannot deny the contractʼs validity. Courts describe this as a conclusive presumption. As a self-imposed duty, policyholders are legally responsible for complying with the conditions and provisions stated in the contract and cannot invalidate or modify the contract on the grounds of not understanding it. Although a violation of this duty does not result in a liability for damages, the policyholder must bear the risks associated with such a violation. There has been intense debate in the United States regarding the duty to read. Proponents argue that it serves as a measure to reduce disputes over the interpretation of insurance policy and affirm that a policyholderʼs signature binds them to the contract. They argue that the duty to read ensures equal treatment of parties, enhances transaction speed, contractual stability, and predictability, and provides an opportunity to identify and rectify fraudulent acts by the insurer. On the other hand, skeptics argue that it is excessively harsh to treat the policyholder as having fully understood the terms simply because they signed, especially given the significant information asymmetry in adhesion contracts between insurers and policyholders. They also point out that conclusive presumption can conceal the insurerʼs wrongdoing. Despite the general acknowledgment by courts of the fact that consumers typically do not read contract terms, the duty to read has been upheld. However, recent efforts have been made to relax this duty to protect policyholders, recognizing that they should not be bound by unfair terms even if the duty to read exists. The duty to read the policy, which is widely recognized by state courts, is often modified by the doctrine of reasonable expectations. The doctrine of reasonable expectations means that if a policyholder has a reasonable expectation, the insurer cannot deny it due to the words in the policy. Courts in many U.S. states apply this doctrine to ensure fairness and equity in insurance contracts, recognizing that policyholders often do not read lengthy and complex insurance policies or fully understand them even if they do. This principle protects policyholders from specific provisions in the contract they did not negotiate, did not read, and probably would not have understood if they had read them. The doctrine applies alongside unconscionability, even if the poli...

설명의무위반으로 인한 계약편입배제와 개별약정 우선의 원칙

장덕조 사법발전재단 2016 사법 Vol.1 No.37

보험계약은 약관에 의하여 체결되는 부합계약으로서 약관규제법과 상법에 의한 규제를 받는다. 보험계약은 성질상 다수의 보험계약자를 상대로 동일한 내용의 계약을 체결하게 되므로, 이를 개별적으로 협의한다면 시간과 비용이 많이 들게 되므로, 다수계약의 합리적 처리를 위하여 이용되고 있다. 그러나 보험회사 측에서 일방적으로 작성한 약관이 계약의 내용으로 편입되는 경우 소비자에게 심각한 손해를 끼칠 수 있다. 또한 보험약관은 전문가인 보험자가 작성한 것으로 기술적이고 복잡한 내용도 많이 포함한다. 그리하여 사회경제적 약자인 보험계약자의 보호를 위하여 약관에 대한 규제가 필요하고, 보험약관을 규제하는 중요한 법률은 상법과 약관규제법, 그리고 보험업법이다. 그 규제 중의 하나가 약관의 편입통제이고, 사업자인 보험자에게 명시·설명의무를 부과하여 약관의 계약편입이 소비자의 인식가능하에 이루어질 수 있도록 한다. 여기서 약관사용의 편의성과 경제성, 소비자보호, 그리고 법률행위의 기본이론 등과의 사이에서 그 조화점을 찾고자 하는 측면에서 다양한 노력이 있어왔으며, 관련 법이론에 대한 견해의 대립이 있다. 또한 일방적인 약관과는 달리 당사자가 개별적으로 교섭을 하여 이끌어낸 개별약정은 약관에 우선하는 효력을 가진다. 본고는 보험약관의 설명의무 및 개별약정과 관련한 수집가능한 판례들을 망라하여 분류 검토하고, 양자의 관계에 대한 다양한 측면에서의 접근을 시도하여 보았다. 먼저, 설명의무에 관한 판례이론의 발전과 그에 대한 비판적 검토를 하였다. 보험약관의 편입통제와 관련하여 계약설이 통설이고 판례이긴 하나, 다음의 점들에 대한 고려가 필요하다. 첫째, 편입합의의 요건이 상당히 완화되어 가는 경향에 대한 우려로써, 소비자가 보험계약을 체결하면서 편입의 합의에 대한 서명을 하는 것만으로 당 약관의 모든 조항을 알고 있었다고 하는 것은 정의와 형평에 반할 여지가 있다. 둘째, 설명의 대상이 되는 중요한 내용이 아니라거나, 기타의 면제사유에 해당한다는 논거에서 그 설명의무 면제의 범위를 넓혀가는 추세에 대한 우려이다. 현재와 같이 예외를 하나둘씩 늘려간다면 결국에는 규범설을 취하는 것과 별반 차이가 없다. 예외의 범위를 늘려가면서 신의칙상의 설명의무 마저 도외시한다면, 계약설 본래의 취지인 소비자보호와 역행하는 결과가 초래될 수도 있다. 요컨대 ‘법령에 규정된 것, 거래상 일반적이고 공통된 것’ 등을 설명의 대상에서 제외하는 점은 바람직하지 못할 수 있다. 일반의 보험소비자는 법령에 규정된 사항이라고 하여 모두 알지도 못하고 이도 계약체결에 영향을 미치는 경우가 많을 것이다. 그러하다면 예외를 두지 않고 소비자의 선택에 영향을 줄 수 있는 내용에 대하여는 모두 설명하도록 하는 것이 타당해 보인다. 셋째, 고객보호의무로서의 설명의무가 상당 부분 불합리한 부분에 대한 해법이 될 수 있다고 본다. 계약의 내용이 되는지 여부 등에 대한 전부 또는 전무식의 해법에 의한 불합리한 점들을 이 의무의 부과와 그 위반 시의 손해배상책임으로 해결하는 것이다. 다음으로 개별약정 우선의 원칙과 설명의무의 관계에 대하여 검토하였다. 약관이 계약당사자 사이에 구속력을 갖는 것은 그 자체가 법규범 또는 법규범적 성질을 가지기 때문이 아니라 당사자가 그 약관의 규정을 계약내용 ... Insurance contracts are concluded based on the terms agreed upon between the insurer and the insured, and are subject to provisions under relevant laws. Noting that considerable time and cost is required to negotiate the terms and conditions with each customer, insurance companies tend to conclude the same contract with multiple customers. However, customers are likely at a disadvantage when signing insurance policies that are unilaterally drawn up by the insurers and include technical and complicated details. Therefore, terms and conditions of insurance contracts need to be regulated by law (e.g., Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, Commercial Act, and Insurance Business Act) in order to protect the interests of insurance customers. One of the regulatory provisions relate to determining whether the incorporated terms are in conformity with the contract by imposing the duty to explain on the insurers. Thus far, efforts have been made to offer universal insurance policies that satisfy both parties from an economic and legal aspect, but there has long been a debate over relevant legal theories. Moreover, individual agreements that are concluded based on negotiation between the parties take precedence over universal insurance policies. The first part of this paper undergoes a critical analysis of the Korean Supreme Court’s judicial precedents regarding the duty to explain. Inasmuch as the traditional contract theory generally applies as to the incorporation of terms in insurance contracts, the following should be taken into consideration: (i) In line with the easing of the requirements for reaching an agreement on incorporation of terms, it could be deemed that the customer was aware of all the policy provisions solely based on his/her signature on the insurance policy alone, which goes against the principles of justice and equity. (ii) Broader exemption of the duty to explain on the grounds that the subject matter did not require explanation, etc. by applying the normative legal theory could likely go against the good faith principle and impede customer protection which is prescribed under contract. Thus, rather than excluding matters that are prescribed by law (which are not easily understood by average customers) or of common knowledge in a transaction, it would be more appropriate to explain any and all matters that may affect a customer’s decision. (iii) Imposing a stronger duty of care on the insurers, and holding them liable for compensation upon violation, could offset any downsides to determining what to incorporate as terms in an insurance contract and what to explain to customers based on the all-or-nothing approach. In the second part, the paper explores the relationship between the doctrine of priority of individual agreements and the duty to explain. Terms and conditions of an insurance policy are binding between the parties because they agreed to include them in the contract, not because the insurance policy in itself constitutes a legal norm or is of a normative nature. On this basis, the Supreme Court’s judicial precedents have held that breaching the duty to explain important matters constituted an exclusion of incorporation of terms in insurance contracts on the grounds that the policy provisions were not agreed between the parties pursuant to the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Act”). Meanwhile, in cases where the insurer and the insured concluded an individual agreement different from the universal insurance policy, the former takes precedence according to the doctrine of the priority of individual agreements and is not subject to the Act. The parties to an individual agreement negotiate the terms and conditions. In that context, inasmuch as the insurer specifies the terms and conditions pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Act, this does not constitute an individual agreement. However, in cases where the parties are deemed to have negotiated the terms before...

설명의무와 지도의무 -설명의무에 관한 최근 판례의 동향-

안법영 ( Bup Young Ahn ),백경희 ( Kyoung Hee Baek ) 안암법학회 2013 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.40

The duty to explain(Aufklarungspflicht, informed consent) in medical living relationship has the principle of the rule for duty and the benefit and protection of the law unlike duty in a general legal living relationship. Therefore, the duty to explain a medical procedure without the patient`s valid prior consent if the configuration is found to infringe on the patient`s self-determination. The Supreme Court`s recent judgement has imposed to the doctor a duty, How to care so that the patient can be properly recovered obligations. However, there is some doubt that this judgement of the Supreme Court is equal to the duty of explain. Because this is doctor`s notice about the convalescence methods observed by patient during or after medical treatment, the Supreme Court`s judgement corresponds to medical duty of care, which is required in medical treatment. It is required by the medical duty of care. Patients` self-determination is not a problem for him and patients should be followed for the treatment of diseases. Eventually difference between the two duties appears in the legal structure, the content, the transition period, the legal effect of any violations, the burden of proof. So, the latter must access to a separate description of the two duties and shall be named as ``Duty to instruct``.

정보비대칭성하에서 설명의무의 본질에 관한 소고 장외파생상품 설명의무의 제도·경제적 접근을 중심으로

박기주(Park, Ki-Ju) 中央大學校 法學硏究所 2015 法學論文集 Vol.39 No.3

The financial institution's duty to explain in OTC Derivatives transactions is transactional subordinate duty of cares as the duty to provide customers reasonable information about financial commodity. Recently, there are many cases to ask for liability by breach of the duty to explain in OTC Derivatives transactions in many countries. For this reason, there is a need for effective control over legal risk in the way that investor's claim for the breach of duty to explain in OTC Derivatives transactions. This is because there might be waste of time and economical cost not stopping consumptive argument on that issue without clear arrangement on the duty to explain. In contract theory and economics, information asymmetry deals with the study of decisions in transactions where one party has more or better information than the other. This creates an imbalance of power n transactions which can sometimes cause the transactions to go awry, a kind of market failure in the worst case. Examples of this problem are adverse selection, moral hazard and information monopoly. Information asymmetry models assume that at least one party to a transaction has relevant information whereas the other(s) do not. The nature of duty to explain is to keeping its balance between a consumer and a financial institution and mutual incentives for both financial consumer and institutions under information asymmetry.

주제별 논단 : 키코 제2라운드 ; 외국의 장외파생상품 피해 관련 사례와 우리나라에 대한 시사점

윤성승 ( Sung Seung Yun ) 한국금융법학회 2011 金融法硏究 Vol.8 No.1

KIKOs are OTC currency option derivatives actively sold after 2007 in Korea. The loss of KIKO buyers was focused again by the public in November 2010, when the Seoul Central District Court decided 118 decisions on KIKO cases. Unfortunately, among the 118 cases, 99 plaintiffs lost in the first instance court. It was shocked to the plaintiffs since they were small and medium size corporations which, as they asserted, did not have enough knowledge and skill to understand and analyze the underlying risk of the KIKO financial derivatives. To decide the legal liability on KIKO derivatives, the characteristics of the structured financial derivatives must be considered. The designers and sellers of the derivatives have sufficient knowledge and skill to understand the inherent risk. However, the buyers are usually do not have such skill. Between seller and buyer, there is information asymmetry. In this article, I reviewed five cases related to OTC derivatives investment loss, including two Korean offshore funds` cases litigated in the U.S. (Diamond Fund case and Morning Glory Fund case), two U.S. cases (BT Securities(Gibson) case and P&G case), and one recent German Supreme Court case in March 2011. From the cases reviewed, I suggest some implications to consider to decide KIKO cases in higher courts in Korea. My suggestions are especially related to the fraud, misrepresentation, duty to explain, and suitability duty. First, since the buyer usually relies on the information and analysis provided by the seller to decide the purchase of the financial derivatives, the seller must clearly prove that the buyer has enough independent competence and skill to evaluate the relevant risk of the derivatives, if the seller asserts that the buyer decided independently or there was no reliance on the seller`s explanation on the risk. When there is information asymmetry between the parties of derivatives, it is usual for buyer to rely on the seller. It is exceptional that buyer does not rely on the seller when derivatives are purchased. Thus seller must prove for the exceptional circumstance. Second, the seller of derivatives has the duty to inform to the buyer on the value of the derivatives they sell. If the seller misinformed or omitted material information needed to decide the value, it can be a fraud or misrepresentation. Such duty can be an implied contactual obligation, even though it is not explicitly mentioned on the derivatives contract. Third, regarding the duty to explain and suitability duty, it is not enough for seller to explain theoretically the contents of the derivatives contract. The purpose of explanation and suitability is to make the buyer to understand the risk and product. To implement the principle of self decision to the buyer, it needs for buyer to have the same level of understanding on risk through the explanation of the seller. The seller must consider whether there is a gap of understanding to the buyer when the seller gives material information to the buyer or explain materiel factors on the risk. Such active duty to explain or suitability duty is based on the good faith and fair dealing. If the seller did not achieved such level of the buyer`s understanding by his explanation of the derivatives, it can be the breach of duty to explain or suitability duty.