2005년 보험법 중요 판례의 분석

Abstract

Review and Prospect on the Insurance Law Cases in 2005 This article analyzes and makes critical comments on the three Supreme Court Cases concerning insurance law provisions. 1) Whether the insurer has an obligation to explain general terms of insurance policy in case the insurance contract is reinstated depends on characterization of the reinstatement. The Supreme court made a right ruling in its case, 2005da23858, where it stated that the insurer has an obligation to explain "material terms" of general terms of insurance policy. 2) Statute of limitation for an injured third party to directly claim remedy against the insurer in the liability insurance contract depends on the legal nature of the claim. The Supreme court did not make a right ruling in its case, 2003da6774, where it stated that the claim is for general damage than for insurance benefit 3) An insurance contract may be void as a violation of public order and morals of Korean Civil Code Article 103 in case the party enters into numerous insurance contracts for injury for unlawful purpose of receiving insurance benefits. Therefore, the Supreme court made a right ruling in its case, 2005da23858.