Earticle

현재 위치 Home

약관에 없는 사항에 대한 설명의무의 존부 - 대법원 2014. 10. 27. 선고 2012다22242판결 -
Duty to Explanation on Significant Matters beyond the Standard Insurance Terms - Supreme Court Decision 2012Da22242 Decides October 27, 2014 -

첫 페이지 보기
  • 발행기관
    동국대학교 비교법문화연구원 바로가기
  • 간행물
    비교법연구 바로가기
  • 통권
    제14권 2호 (2014.10)바로가기
  • 페이지
    pp.199-226
  • 저자
    김선정
  • 언어
    한국어(KOR)
  • URL
    https://www.earticle.net/Article/A248058

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

6,700원

원문정보

초록

영어
In recent years, there has been considerable litigation involving life insurance sales. This rash of life insurance litigation has several root causes. A more serious problem is that variable or universal insurance can be confusing because those contract are financially sophisticated. Although much of this confusion could be eliminated if insureds would read their insurance terms or accompanying prospectuses, carefully review term illustrations, or question their solicitor about key aspects of terms, many do not. Their ultimate disappointment with their policies leads to anger and blame and thus to litigation against the insurers and solicitor whom they consider responsible for their alleged predicaments. In their zeal to make sales, some insurer provide customers with optimistic illustrations of policy performance that, while perhaps per missible under insurers’ compliance standards, unreasonably raise customers’ expectations and lead to litigation when those expectations are not met. This article provides a specific discussion of liability issues facing insurers, insurance solicitor in connection with the sale of life insurance, especially in case of breach of the duty to explanation. Duty to explain provided on the Commercial act art.638-3, Regulation of standardized contracts act art.3 and Insurance business act art.95-2. The Insurance business act differ from the Commercial act and Regulation of standardized contract act. Because the scope of explanation of former is material facts and important contents in insurance terms but the latter is not limited the scope of explanation to general terms. The Supreme Court Decision 2012Da22242 Decides October 27, 2014 ruled that the insurer have to explain the important contents of insurance contract whether the contents described in insurance terms or not. It is milestone decision and confirmed precedent case, 2010Da34159. This became a much enhanced policyholder protection.

목차

Ⅰ. 사실관계 및 다툼
 Ⅱ. 소송의 경과
 Ⅲ. 평석
 Ⅳ. 맺는말
 참고문헌
 Abstract

키워드

변액보험 유니버셜보험 변액유니버셜보험 설명의무 상법제683조의2 약관규제법 제3조. 보험업법 제95조의2 Variable insurance Universal insurance Variable universal insurance Duty to explanation Commercial act art.638-3 Regulation of standardized contracts act art.3 Insurancebusiness act art.95-2.

저자

  • 김선정 [ Kim, Sun-Jeong | 동국대학교 법과대학 교수, 법학박사. ]

참고문헌

자료제공 : 네이버학술정보

간행물 정보

발행기관

  • 발행기관명
    동국대학교 비교법문화연구원 [The Institute of Comparative Law and Legal Culture]
  • 설립연도
    2000
  • 분야
    사회과학>법학
  • 소개
    본 연구소에서는 세계 각국의 새로운 법률제도를 그때그때 입수하여 이를 소개하고 한국 실정에 접목가능성을 연구·분석한다. 아울러 본 연구소는 국내의 각종 학술단체, 연구소, 연구기관과의 교류를 증진함은 물론 외국대학의 연구소와 공동연구를 통해 외국의 법문화와 학풍을 소개함으로써 대외적인 학풍선양에도 기여하게 함을 목적으로 한다.

간행물

  • 간행물명
    비교법연구 [The Journal of Comparative Law]
  • 간기
    연3회
  • pISSN
    1598-3285
  • 수록기간
    2000~2025
  • 십진분류
    KDC 360 DDC 340

이 권호 내 다른 논문 / 비교법연구 제14권 2호

    피인용수 : 0(자료제공 : 네이버학술정보)

    함께 이용한 논문 이 논문을 다운로드한 분들이 이용한 다른 논문입니다.

      페이지 저장