본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

책임보험상의 직접청구권을 둘러싼 법적논점에 관한 고찰

A legal analysis on some legal issues as regarding the direct right of action in a liability insurance contract

1

조회

0

다운로드

18

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

It is very clear that the introduction of the third party's direct right of action in a liability insurance has played an important role in a matter of protection of the third party(sufferer). This introduction in 1991 which gave this direct right of action to the third party who is not a contracting party was mainly decided by a matter of insurance policy to protect the third party. Although a lot of legal issues such as priority between the direct right of action and the right to claim for insured amount, res judicata, claim of right of defense, set-off and extinctive prescription as regarding this direct right of action have occurred, the concerned insurance law fails to provide proper solutions to those questions. Under this circumstance, we may rely on the academic interpretation and case laws. The first step should be the question of what is the legal character of the direct right of action (right to claim for damages? or right to claim for insured amount?). Even though a large number of academic interpretation and case law support the view of right to claim for damages, the above legal issues should not be interpreted based on only the view of right to claim for damages. It is because we should also take into account the intrinsic attribute of a liability insurance which is the protection of the insured. In other words, when we discuss the above issues, we should consider not only the view of protection of the third party but also the view of protection of the insured. Ultimately, article 724 of Korean Commercial Law should be revised again containing the clear wording for the above legal issues with a view of protection of insured as well as protection of the third party.

Abstract

It is very clear that the introduction of the third party's direct right of action in a liability insurance has played an important role in a matter of protection of the third party(sufferer). This introduction in 1991 which gave this direct right of action to the third party who is not a contracting party was mainly decided by a matter of insurance policy to protect the third party. Although a lot of legal issues such as priority between the direct right of action and the right to claim for insured amount, res judicata, claim of right of defense, set-off and extinctive prescription as regarding this direct right of action have occurred, the concerned insurance law fails to provide proper solutions to those questions. Under this circumstance, we may rely on the academic interpretation and case laws. The first step should be the question of what is the legal character of the direct right of action (right to claim for damages? or right to claim for insured amount?). Even though a large number of academic interpretation and case law support the view of right to claim for damages, the above legal issues should not be interpreted based on only the view of right to claim for damages. It is because we should also take into account the intrinsic attribute of a liability insurance which is the protection of the insured. In other words, when we discuss the above issues, we should consider not only the view of protection of the third party but also the view of protection of the insured. Ultimately, article 724 of Korean Commercial Law should be revised again containing the clear wording for the above legal issues with a view of protection of insured as well as protection of the third party.

참고문헌 (26)

  1. 김성태, "보험법강론" (2001), 법문사
  2. 양승규, "보험법" (2004), 삼지원
  3. 이주흥, "실무손해배상책임법" (1997), 박영사
  4. 정찬형, "상법강의(하)" (2008), 박영사
  5. 최기원, "보험법" (1998), 박영사
  6. Robert Merkin, "Colinvaux's Law of Insurance" (1997), Sweet & Maxwell
  7. Malcolm Clarke, "The Law of Insurance Contracts" (1994), Lloyd's of London Press
  8. 강재철, "책임보험과 피해자인 제3자", 재판자료, 53 (1991)
  9. 김동훈, "책임보험에 있어서 피해자의 직접청구권 in 오늘의 법률", ~ (1998)
  10. 김성태, "직접청구권의 성질과 시효 in 상사판례연구 II" (1996), 박영사
  11. 김태주, "자동차손해배상책임보험에서의 피해자의 직접청구권", 경북대 법대 논총, 23 (1985)
  12. 서돈각, "자동차손해배상보장법상의 피해자의 직접청구권에 관한 약간의 문제", 상법연구, 2 (1980)
  13. 서영화, "해상의 책임보험과 피해자의 직접청구권-소위 Pay First Clause와 관련하여", 한국해법학회지, 28(1) (2006)
  14. 양승규, "피해자의 보험금 직접청구권의 법적성질 in 손해보험", ~ (1995)
  15. 윤진수, "자동차손해배상보장법 제3조의 손해배상채권과 채무가 동일인에게 귀속되는 경우, 혼동에 의한 직접청구권의 소멸여부", 판례월보, (302) (1995)
  16. 이광복, "책임보험에 있어서 피해자의 직접청구권", 석사, 법학, pp.1996
  17. 이연갑, "책임보험에 있어서 직접청구권과 상계의 효력", 민사판례연구, 14 (2002), 민사판례연구회
  18. 이정구, "자동차사고피해자의 보험회사에 대한 직접청구권", 재판자료, 20 (1984)
  19. 임준호, "최신판례연구 in 고시연구", ~ (1995)
  20. 임충희, "자동차책임보험에서의 피해자의 직접청구권에 관한 고찰", 보험학회지, 37 (1991)
  21. 장경환, "자동차손해배상책임보험에서의 직접청구권의 성질과 손해배상청구권의 혼동", 경희법학, 38(1) (2003)
  22. 정경영, "공동불법행위 피해자의 직접청구권 in 보험법연구 3" (1999), 삼지원
  23. 정진세, "인보험에 있어서 음주운전과 무면허운전면책약관의 법적 효력-프랑스법을 참조하여 in 판례실무연구 II" (1998), 박영사
  24. 정진옥, "직접청구권의 소멸시효와 기산점", 상사판례연구, 7 (1996)
  25. 주영은, "책임보험에 있어서 피보험자보호에 관한 비교법적 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.1987
  26. 황경학, "피해자의 직접청구권에 관한 소고", 인천법조, 2 (1995)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (20건)