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 -
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
변액보험유니버셜보험변액유니버셜보험설명의무상법제683조의2약관규제법 제3조. 보험업법 제95조의2Variable insuranceUniversal insuranceVariable universal insuranceDuty to explanationCommercial act art.638-3Regulation of standardized contracts act art.3Insurancebusiness act art.95-2.
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.