고지의무위반에 있어서 중과실의 의미 및판단기준 대법원 2013. 6. 13 선고 2011다54631 판결에 대한 평석
Meaning and Criterion for Judgment of Gross Negligence in Breach of Duty of Disclosure
2
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study analyzed and researched the ruling of the Supreme Court Casethat dealt with the issue of the meaning and criteria for judgment of grossnegligence of policyholder etc. in the duty of disclosure and whereabouts ofburden of proof of gross negligence and the degree of duty of disclosure incase the insured and the policyholder are not an identical person. This case is about the fact that an insurance contract was concluded bythe policyholder and his representative who were living away from theinsured but the policyholder etc. did not know about the diagnosis ofthyroid nodule of the insured at that time and the insurance contract wasconcluded while the policyholder did not disclose this fact of the diagnosis. Then in this time, breach of duty of disclosure by the policyholder etc. canbe admitted? About the above, the ruling of the Supreme Court was that incase an insured and a policyholder are not an identical person, in principle,even if the policyholder did not actively confirm and disclose to the insurerthe matters about the personal physical condition of the insured that personswho are not the insured himself cannot exactly know of as far as there arenot special circumstances it is not straightaway admitted as a grossnegligence. Recently, the trends of the legislation of various countries forthe system of duty of disclosure are changing active duty of disclosure intopassive duty of answer that answers the questions of insurer. Namely, theduty of disclosure which was the duty of spontaneous disclosure is reducedand limited to duty of passive answer. In this aspect, it is necessary to revise the system of duty of disclosure inour commercial law to duty of passive answer. The ruling of the SupremeCourt is thought to be adequate in consideration of the trend of makingduty of disclosure passive.
Abstract
This study analyzed and researched the ruling of the Supreme Court Casethat dealt with the issue of the meaning and criteria for judgment of grossnegligence of policyholder etc. in the duty of disclosure and whereabouts ofburden of proof of gross negligence and the degree of duty of disclosure incase the insured and the policyholder are not an identical person. This case is about the fact that an insurance contract was concluded bythe policyholder and his representative who were living away from theinsured but the policyholder etc. did not know about the diagnosis ofthyroid nodule of the insured at that time and the insurance contract wasconcluded while the policyholder did not disclose this fact of the diagnosis. Then in this time, breach of duty of disclosure by the policyholder etc. canbe admitted? About the above, the ruling of the Supreme Court was that incase an insured and a policyholder are not an identical person, in principle,even if the policyholder did not actively confirm and disclose to the insurerthe matters about the personal physical condition of the insured that personswho are not the insured himself cannot exactly know of as far as there arenot special circumstances it is not straightaway admitted as a grossnegligence. Recently, the trends of the legislation of various countries forthe system of duty of disclosure are changing active duty of disclosure intopassive duty of answer that answers the questions of insurer. Namely, theduty of disclosure which was the duty of spontaneous disclosure is reducedand limited to duty of passive answer. In this aspect, it is necessary to revise the system of duty of disclosure inour commercial law to duty of passive answer. The ruling of the SupremeCourt is thought to be adequate in consideration of the trend of makingduty of disclosure passive.
참고문헌 (61)
- 김성태, "보험법강의" (2001), 법문사
- 박세민, "보험법" (2013), 박영사
- 서돈각, "제4전정 상법강의(하권)" (1996), 법문사
- 양승규, "보험법" (2005), 삼지원
- 이기수, "보험·해상법" (2008), 세창출판사
- 이필규, "2009년 독일보험계약법(VVG)" (2009), 세창출판사
- 장덕조, "보험법" (2011), 법문사
- 정동윤, "상법(하)" (2011), 법문사
- 정찬형, "상법강의(하)(제15판)" (2013), 박영사
- 최기원, "상법학신론(하)" (2004), 박영사
- 최준선, "보험법·해상법" (2008), 삼영사
- 한창희, "보험법" (2011), 국민대학교 출판부
- 김성태, "고지의무제도의 선의성", 경희법학, 29(1) (1994)
- 김선정, "일본 보험법상 고지의무제도의 개혁", 기업법연구, 22(4), pp.383~407 (2008), 한국기업법학회
- 김선정, "보험계약체결시 대리인이나 보험계약자가 피보험자에 대하여 중요사항을 적극적으로 확인하여 고지하여야 하는지 여부", 월간 생명보험, (414) (2013)
- 김은경, "보험계약법상 고지의무 및 설명의무에 대한 비교법적 고찰", 경영법률, 19(2), pp.447~487 (2009), 한국경영법률학회
- 김창종, "해상․보험법에 관한 제문제(하)" (1990), 법원행정처
- 김효신, "고지의무의 입법상 과제", 비교사법, 20(1), pp.273~296 (2013), 한국비교사법학회
- 맹수석, "일본 개정 보험법의 주요 내용", 월간 생명보험, 통권 : 360 (2009)
- 맹수석, "2004 생명보험 논문집" (2004)
- 맹수석, "실손보상형 상해보험에서의 중복보험 문제", 선진상사법률연구, (58), pp.45~69 (2012), 법무부[DOI]
- 양승규, "보험계약자의 대리인에 의한 고지의무위반과 역선택", 월간 손해보험, (540) (2013)
- 이정원, "2012년 영국소비자보험(고지의무)법에 관한 고찰", 저스티스, (133), pp.91~114 (2012), 한국법학원
- 이진수, "영국보험법상 기업보험에서 고지의무제도 개혁논의의 동향 - 법률위원회의 Joint Consultation Paper를 중심으로", 상사법연구, 32(2), pp.309~349 (2013), 한국상사법학회
- 이진수, "판례평석 : 고지의무위반의 주관적 요건- 대법원 2013.6.13. 선고 2011다54631,4648 판결 -", 상사판례연구, 26(4), pp.45~87 (2013), 한국상사판례학회
- 장경환, "손해보험에서의 다수계약통지의무", 보험학회지, (75), pp.93~134 (2006), 한국보험학회
- "금융법연구", 2013, 129~168, pp.한국금융법학회
- 장덕조, "答辯義務로서의 告知義務", 기업법연구, 25(2), pp.217~237 (2011), 한국기업법학회
- 정호열, "고지의무에 관한 고찰", 법학, 40(1) (1999), 서울대
- 조지현, "수동적 답변의무로서의 고지의무", 상사판례연구, 26(3), pp.89~117 (2013), 한국상사판례학회
- 최병규, "외국의 개정 보험계약법과 고지의무의 나아갈 방향", 경영법률, 19(3), pp.91~116 (2009), 한국경영법률학회
- 한기정, "고지의무의 수동화 - 자발적 고지의무에서 수동적 응답의무로 -", 비교사법, 16(3), pp.325~363 (2009), 한국비교사법학회
- 한창희, "고지의무의 입법적 연혁과 최근동향", 상사법연구, 28(4), pp.135~185 (2010), 한국상사법학회
- 江頭憲治郞, "商取引法" (2002), 弘文堂
- 岡田豊基, "現代保險法" (2010), 中央經濟社
- 石井照久, "海商法․保險法" (1981), 勁草書房
- 石田滿, "商法Ⅳ(保險法)" (1997), 靑林書院
- 大森忠夫, "保險法" (1985), 有斐閣
- 大串淳子, "保險法" (2008), 弘文堂
- 倉澤康一郞, "保險契約の法理" (1975), 慶応通信
- 田邊康平, "新版現代保險法" (1995), 文眞堂
- 西嶋梅治, "保險法" (1998), 悠々社
- 山下友信, "保險法" (2005), 有斐閣
- 山下友信, "保險法解說" (2010), 有斐閣
- 新井修司, "ドイツ保險契約法", ~ (2008)
- 萩本修, "保險法立案關係資料" (2008), 商事法務
- "生命保險新實務講座 7" (1990)
- 靑谷和夫, "無診査保險における外務員の告知受領の權限", 民商法雜誌, 28(2) (1953)
- 遠藤美光, "保險判例百選" (2010), 有斐閣
- 大澤康孝, "保險判例百選" (2010), 有斐閣
- 橫田尙昌, "保險判例百選" (2010), 有斐閣
- 木下孝治, "保險法改正の論點" (2009), 法律文化社
- 中西正明, "生命保險契約の告知義務-告知義務違反の成立要件", 民商法雜誌, 114(4·5) (1996)
- 中西正明, "保險契約の告知義務" (2003), 有斐閣
- Barlow Lyde, "Tolley’s Insurance Handbook" (2000), CII
- John F. Dobbyn, "Insurance Law" (1989), West Publishing Co
- Malcolm A. Clarke, "The Law of Insurance contracts" (2009), Informa Law
- Mark S. Dorfman, "Introduction to Risk Management and Insurance" (2001), Prentice Hall
- Hans-Leo Weyers, "Versicherungsvertragsrecht" (2003)
- Prölss, "Versicherungsvertragsgesetz Kommentar" (2010)
- Römer, "Versicherungsvertragsgesetz Kommentar" (2012)