Earticle

This study investigated existing theories on the object and insurable interests of liability insurance. The purpose of this study is to examine problems in the existing theories on the object and insurable interests of liability insurance published thus far and describe a new theory that can compensate the problems. Thus far, the object of liability insurance has been generally regarded as the whole fortune of the insured person or the liability of reparation of the insured person. However, this paper is intended to regard the objects of insurance accidents that are insured instead of the whole fortune or liability of reparation of the insured person and describe the legitimacy and validity of this theory. Therefore, this paper will argue that the object of liability insurance is not the whole fortune or liability of reparation of the insured person as argued by existing studies thus far but is the object of insurance accidents while explaining the reasons as well as actually presenting relevant cases to prove the argument. Thereafter, to understand the issue of insurable interests of liability insurance, the theory of whole fortune, the theory of financial conditions, the theory that denies the insurable interests, and the theory of liability interests will be compared and reviewed. Then, problems in the theory of whole fortune, the theory of financial conditions, and the theory that denies the insurable interests and the iniquity of these theories will be pointed out and the validity of the theory of liability interests, which is recognized as a relatively proper theory in the relative position, will be proved. Thereafter, a new theory that compensates the shortcomings of this theory will be made.

최근 대법원은 전원합의체를 통해 임차목적물 화재에 있어 임차인의 배상책임범위를 제한하고 기존에 임차인에게 있던 증명책임을 임대인에게 전환하도록 판례를 변경하였다. 이러한 결론에 이르기 위해 법리에 중요한 변화가 있었고, 해당 판례와 관련하여 임차인 손해배상책임의 법적 성질 및 기존 법리의 변경에 대한 많은 논의가 민법의 채무불이행과 불법행위 이론을 중심으로 진행되고 있다. 보험법적 관점에서 보면, 임차인의 손해배상책임의 범위가 변경됨은 화재보험과 화재배상책임보험의 피보험이익 산정 기준에 변화가 있을 수 있다는 의미가 된다. 임대차계약에서 임차목적물이 화재 등으로 인하여 소훼됨으로써 임차인의 목적물 반환의무가 후발적 불능이 된 경우, 만약 임차인에게 화재의 책임이 있는 경우라면 배상책임은 당연히 인정된다. 문제는 화재의 발생에 임차인의 책임이 인정되지 않는 경우, 임차 부분과 임차 외 부분의 손해배상책임을 각각 어떻게 논할 것인가에 있다. 판례는 책임범위와 증명책임에 관한 기존 입장을 변경하고, 범위의 제한과 증명책임의 전환이라는 큰 변화를 가져왔다. 오늘날 임대인이 화재보험을 이용하는 것은 물론이고 임차인도 자기를 위한 보험 내지 타인을 위한 보험의 양태로 화재보험 및 화재배상책임보험에 적극적으로 가입하고 있는 만큼 실제로 해당 판례로 변경되는 책임범위가 피보험이익의 산정에 영향을 미칠 가능성에 대해 논해보고자 한다.

Recently, the Supreme Court changed the precedent to limit the lessee’s liability for damages on the property of the tenancy, and to transfer the lessee's responsibility to the owner. There was a significant change in the jurisprudence to reach this conclusion. In relation to this case, much discussions on the legal nature of the lessee’s liability and the change of the jurisdiction are proceeding on the basis of the breach of promise to pay and the theory of tort. From the legal perspective, insurance, a change in the scope of the lessee's liability for damages implies that there may be a change in the criteria for calculating insurance benefits in fire insurance and fire insurance liability insurance. The problem is how to discuss the liability of the tenant and the non-tenant, respectively, if the lessee is not liable for the occurrence of the fire. In modern society, not only building owners sign fire insurance contracts, but also lessees are actively using fire insurance and fire insurance liability insurance. Therefore, in this paper, i would like to discuss the possibility that the scope of liability changed in this case actually affects the calculation of the insurable profit.