약정보험가액에 관한 연구

Abstract

It is frequently suggested that an amendment needs to be made for valued policy in section 670 of Korean Commercial Code. The current law is not conclusively enforcing the effect of the agreed value of the subject matter of insurance(hereafter “agreed value”). In other words, while it is presumed that the agreed value is the actual value of the subject matter of insurance(hereafter “actual value”), when the agreed value significantly exceeds the actual value the latter is regarded as the value of the subject matter of insurance. The above suggestion aims to recognize the conclusive validity of the agreed value. However, so far the above suggestion has not been taken into account in legislation. Not only has the above amendment not been included in the comprehensive reform of the Insurance Part of Korean Commercial Code in 2014, it was not given much attention to during the reform process. The reason for this is partly because the above suggestion has not yet gained enough support in Korea. There are even some who are still against the idea. There are three different ways deciding the effect of the agreed value. The first is to give conclusive force to the agreed value except in cases of wager, fraud and breach of duty of disclosure. The second is to give conclusive force to the actual value when there is a significant difference between the agreed value and the actual value. The third is to impose on the insurer the burden of proving the actual value. This paper investigates and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the first and second ways mentioned above and aims to suggest which one is more suitable for Korean insurance business practice. The conclusion is that considering current insurance practices in Korea, giving conclusive force to the agreed value can be a better solution. In Korea, the agreed value is usually decided on the basis of a fairly objective standard of evaluation, not likely to expose the insured to a moral hazard that stems from a significant difference between the agreed value and the actual value. In spite of this, allowing the exemption or reduction of the obligation to pay claims in case of such a difference may seriously harm the stability and trust of an insurance contracts relationship.