본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

상법 제735조의3(단체보험) 조문의 해석상 문제점에 대한 소고

A study on the critical interpretation on the article 735-3(Group Insurance) of the Korean Commercial Law and the revision

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The article 735-3 of the Korean Commercial Law is incomplete. The characteristic of the group insurance is the life insurance contract for third party. Therefore, in general the insured should be regarded as a beneficiary and this interpretation should be included in the article 735-3. If the policyholder designate the third party other than the insured as a beneficiary or change it, after entering into a contract, the written consent of the insured should be required. This interpretation corresponds with the nature of the group insurance and the insured can be protected. When the group obtains the written consent from the insured about the designation itself as a beneficiary, the purpose of use of the insurance money should be restricted. In addition, the duty to explain the purpose of use of the insurance money should be imposed on the policyholder. Under the current article, the interpretation should be flexible. Even though the policyholder(group) obtains the insured's consent about the designation itself as a beneficiary, the designated beneficiary(group) should be regarded as a nominal beneficiary. Therefore, after the nominal beneficiary received the insurance money, he should give it back to the insured or his surviving family. This interpretation is based on the principle of good faith and the nature of the group insurance.

Abstract

The article 735-3 of the Korean Commercial Law is incomplete. The characteristic of the group insurance is the life insurance contract for third party. Therefore, in general the insured should be regarded as a beneficiary and this interpretation should be included in the article 735-3. If the policyholder designate the third party other than the insured as a beneficiary or change it, after entering into a contract, the written consent of the insured should be required. This interpretation corresponds with the nature of the group insurance and the insured can be protected. When the group obtains the written consent from the insured about the designation itself as a beneficiary, the purpose of use of the insurance money should be restricted. In addition, the duty to explain the purpose of use of the insurance money should be imposed on the policyholder. Under the current article, the interpretation should be flexible. Even though the policyholder(group) obtains the insured's consent about the designation itself as a beneficiary, the designated beneficiary(group) should be regarded as a nominal beneficiary. Therefore, after the nominal beneficiary received the insurance money, he should give it back to the insured or his surviving family. This interpretation is based on the principle of good faith and the nature of the group insurance.

참고문헌 (18)

  1. 大森忠夫, "いわゆる事業保險と被保險者の同意", 生命保險契約法の諸問題 (1958), 有斐閣
  2. 고평석, "단체보험에 관한 상법 제735조의3 제1항의 위헌성 검토", 상사법연구, 18(2) (1999)
  3. 김문재, "단체보험계약 서설", 기업구조의 재편과 상사법(II) (박길준교수 화갑기념논문집) (1998)
  4. 김문재, "단체보험금의 귀속", 상사판례연구 (1999)
  5. 김성태, "보험법강론" (2001), 법문사
  6. 맹수석, "2007년 상법보험편 개정특별분과위원회 회의자료 (발표부분)", ~ (2007)
  7. 박세민, "상법 제731조(타인의 생명의 보험) 해석상의 문제점에 대한 소고", 안암법학, (25) (2007)
  8. 법무부, "상법개정특별분과위원회 회의록 (I) (II), 보험해상편" (1990)
  9. 상법 단체보험규정의 위헌제청관련 검토의견서, "생명보험협회", ~ (1999)
  10. 안동섭, "단체보험", 월간고시 (1990)
  11. 유관우, "인보험약관해석" (2006), 엘림 G&P
  12. 이기성, "고지의무위반의 법적효력", 보험해상법의 개정방향 법무부 법무자료 126집 (1990)
  13. 이상선, "단체보험", 재판과 판례 제9집 (2000)
  14. 상법 제4편(보험법) 개정의견, 상법개정연구보고서 (한국상사법학회), "장경환", ~ (2005)
  15. 장경환, "단체보험의 보험수익자", 고시계 (1998)
  16. 정규명, "생명보험론", pp.1997, 정영동
  17. 정호열, "단체생명보험계약과 보험금청구권의 귀속", 고시연구 (2000)
  18. 주기종, "단체보험계약의 기본적 법률관계", 상사법연구, 20(2) (2001)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)