임원배상책임보험 면책약관상 고의의 의미 - 대법원 2022. 8. 31. 선고 2018다304014 판결을 중심으로 -

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s decision interprets the meaning of wilful, which is a requirement for exemption under the terms and conditions, in the same way as the meaning of ‘general intent’ prescribed by law. As a result, The Supreme Court ruled that intent, which is an element of immunity, includes ‘indeterminate intent’. This decision follows the previous ruling of the Supreme Court that general intent’ includes indeterminate intent. However, it is rather natural to interpret the ‘general intent’ prescribed in the law differently from the intent in immunity terms. While ‘general intent’ is the basis for condemnation of the actor, ‘intent in immunity’ fulfills the function of exempting the insurer from liability. Therefore, there is no inevitable reason to interpret ‘intent’, which is a reason for exemption from liability to include ‘indeterminate intention’. If the meaning of the insurance contract clause is unclear, it must be interpreted unfavorably to the drafter and must not be interpreted unfavorably to the policyholder. Exemption grounds are favorable to the insurer and unfavorable to the policyholder, so if the meaning or scope of the grounds for exemption set forth in the terms and conditions is unknown, the interpretation should be interpreted as narrowly as possible in favor of the policyholder. Executives' liability insurance has a different function from general liability insurance, which compensates for individual tort liability. Therefore, when interpreting the scope of reasons for exemption, it is desirable to interpret it in a way that guarantees its function as much as possible. Acknowledging the insurer's immunity from liability for damages due to intentional negligence causes a contraction in business activities, It does not conform to the purpose of executive liability insurance, which is designed to compensate for the unfortunate results of challenging management through the insurance system.