보험금 부정취득 목적 보험계약의 효력 : 부당이득에 대한 상사 소멸시효 유추적용 법리의 명암 - 대상판결 : 대법원 2021. 7. 22. 선고 2019다277812 전원합의체 판결

Abstract

The Supreme Court confirmed that if an insurance contract was concluded for the purpose of improperly acquiring insurance money, the insurance contract would be invalid because it violated Article 103 of the Civil Act. In addition, the insurance company can claim the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the policyholder. In this judgment, the commercial extinction prescription of Article 64 of the Commercial Act shall apply to the right to claim the restitution of unjust enrichment. Regarding these precedents, first, in the target judgment, the 10-year extinctive prescription under the Civil Act was not applied to the claim of the insurance company for the restitution of unjust enrichment against the policyholder. Instead, the extinctive prescription under the Commercial Act was applied by analogy. As a result, policyholders are more protected, which I think is desirable. However, the target judgment held that Article 64 of the Commercial Act, not Article 662 of the Commercial Act, should be applied by analogy to the insurance company's claim for the restitution of unjust enrichment against the policyholder, which I do not think is logical or reasonable. In particular, Article 662 of the Commercial Act excludes the application of analogies on the grounds of ‘legislative policy decision’, while Article 64 of the Commercial Act recognizes the application of analogies, which I do not think is logical or justifiable in terms of the legal system. Rather, I think that Article 662 of the Commercial Act, a regulation directly and more closely related to the case, should have been applied by analogy as an individual clause rather than Article 64, which is a general provision clause. Second, the Supreme Court considers that if an insurance contract is concluded for the purpose of fraudulently acquiring insurance money, the insurance contract is invalid, contrary to good morals and other social order prescribed in Article 103 of the Civil Act. but It is questionable whether such a principle is always valid. In this case, existing precedents that judged the act of concluding an insurance contract for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance money as an anti-social legal act under Article 103 of the Civil Act should be abolished. And they should be judged as legal acts by fraud and judged to be grounds for cancellation. Third, I point out the problems with the principle of whether Article 64 of the Commercial Act can be applied by analogy with respect to the right to claim the return of unfair profits, which is the legal principle that was the premise of the target judgment and the principle of exception. According to the Supreme Court, the reason that Article 64 of the Commercial Act sets the statute of limitations for claims arising from commercial contracts to be five years is “considering the characteristics of commercial transactions (mass, fixed, expeditious), It needs to be resolved quickly and efficiently.” However, it is a question of whether ① what kind of act should be regarded as a commercial act, and ② in what cases it is necessary to formally and quickly resolve the contractual relationship. In the process of judging this, the attitude of the courts to make different judgments without clear grounds for each individual case is also a problem. In addition, since there is also a question as to what ‘claim due to commercial activity’ is a requirement for the statute of limitations to be applied or applied by analogy, it is necessary to look at the indicators for its determination. Finally, I would like to point out that Article 64 of the Commercial Act has caused many problems around the application or analogy application problem, and fundamentally needs system improvement. Representatively, referring to the revision of the law in Japan that deleted the statute of limitations for general business extinction, it is considered that fundamental institutional improvement is necessary based on foreign legislative cases and discussions in Korean academia and working circles.