보험업법 개정과 보험계약자보호에 관한 고찰

Abstract

There have been lots of arguments whether an insurance subscriber can be protected as same as an investor in a financing product, since the insurance product, especially the variable insurance product, also has the characteristics of the financing product. For example, there exist the arguments whether the insurer’s explanation on its insurance clauses upon subscription is sufficient protection for its subscriber, and whether the insuranceproduct-solicitor shall also bear the same responsibilities as those of the finance-product-solicitors according to the principle of suitability under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Acts (“FISCMA”). In this regard, one side of the arguments has insisted to protect the insurance subscribers by adding some solicitation-restricting provisions into the Insurance Chapter of the Korean Commercial Code (“KCC”), while the other side has insisted to protect the insurance subscribers by adding some solicitation-restricting provisions into the Insurance Chapter of the Korean Commercial Code (“KCC”), while the other side has insisted to protect the subscriber by adding such restricting provisions into the Insurance Business Act (“IBA”). Finally in 2010, through the amendment of the IBA (it has been amended in July 23, 2010, and it will be enforced from January 24, 2011), many provisions to further protect the insurance subscribers have been enacted. The main provisions of this amendment include a provision to prescribe the insurer/solicitor’s duty of explanation (Article 95-2 of the IBA), a provision to stipulate the principle of suitability (Article 95-3 of the IBA), a provision for an insurance-soliciting advertisement to comply (Article 95-4 of the IBA), and a provision to prescribe the insurers’ duty to confirm any overlapping subscriptions (Article 95-5 of the IBA). It is anticipated that all of these provisions would intensify the protection of the insurance subscribers and can be a useful guideline for the tort cases which are currently pending in the Korean Supreme Court, and argued on the principle of suitability and its applicability to the variable insurance products.