책임보험에서 직접청구권의 법적 성질에 관한 소고
A Study on the Legal Nature of a Direct Claim in Liability Insurance
3
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Liability insurance is a principle that the insured exercise the insurer insurance claims if an accident insurance should be occurs. But if this principle is strictly applied, the victim of an accident insurance will not get full compensation when perpetrators of the accident insurance become insolvent state. To solve this problem, our revised 「Commercial Code」 article 724 section 2 was the provision of the victim's own claim for insurers in order to strengthen the protection of victims. However, Our theories and cases of Supreme Court are two kinds of interpretation such as insurance claims and claims for damages, because this provision only stipulates the victim's own claim and does not reveal the legal nature. Initially after the amendment, theories and cases of Supreme Court adopt a contrary view and has been interpreted increasingly as a claim for damages after Supreme Court ruled insurance claims in since November 1997 up to date. German removed the controversy about the legal nature of the claim directly, by the 「Insurance Contract Act 2009 amended」 article 115 section 1 was the provision of victim's claim damages. Orthodoxy and the case of Supreme Court also has been interpreted as a claim for damages in France. Japan also has provisions of victim's claim damages if a car insured in compulsory liability insurance cause damage. But The United States and Britain has been interpreted as victims exercise on behalf of insurance claims of the insured, because the victim's own claim is not recognized in liability insurance. In a foreign country, opinion on the legal nature are divided such as our opinions. But our 「Commercial Code」 not clarify the legal nature unlike legislation of Germany, Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom. And the judgment of the Supreme Court has a problem of that the basis of claim is not clear. Therefore, I would like to seek legislative amendment for problems raised in interpretation of 「Commercial Code」 article 724 section 2 after reviewing the discussion in foreign countries and Korea.
Abstract
Liability insurance is a principle that the insured exercise the insurer insurance claims if an accident insurance should be occurs. But if this principle is strictly applied, the victim of an accident insurance will not get full compensation when perpetrators of the accident insurance become insolvent state. To solve this problem, our revised 「Commercial Code」 article 724 section 2 was the provision of the victim's own claim for insurers in order to strengthen the protection of victims. However, Our theories and cases of Supreme Court are two kinds of interpretation such as insurance claims and claims for damages, because this provision only stipulates the victim's own claim and does not reveal the legal nature. Initially after the amendment, theories and cases of Supreme Court adopt a contrary view and has been interpreted increasingly as a claim for damages after Supreme Court ruled insurance claims in since November 1997 up to date. German removed the controversy about the legal nature of the claim directly, by the 「Insurance Contract Act 2009 amended」 article 115 section 1 was the provision of victim's claim damages. Orthodoxy and the case of Supreme Court also has been interpreted as a claim for damages in France. Japan also has provisions of victim's claim damages if a car insured in compulsory liability insurance cause damage. But The United States and Britain has been interpreted as victims exercise on behalf of insurance claims of the insured, because the victim's own claim is not recognized in liability insurance. In a foreign country, opinion on the legal nature are divided such as our opinions. But our 「Commercial Code」 not clarify the legal nature unlike legislation of Germany, Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom. And the judgment of the Supreme Court has a problem of that the basis of claim is not clear. Therefore, I would like to seek legislative amendment for problems raised in interpretation of 「Commercial Code」 article 724 section 2 after reviewing the discussion in foreign countries and Korea.
참고문헌 (47)
- 강위두, "「상법강의(하)」 전정판" (2010), 형설출판사
- 김성태, "보험법강론" (2001), 법문사
- 고평석, "책임보험계약법론" (1990), 삼지원
- 정찬형, "상법강의(하)(제2판)" (2000), 박영사
- 양승규, "「보험법」 제5판" (2004), 삼지원
- 양승규, "보험법·해상법" (1999), 한국방송대학교출판부
- 이기수, "」 제8판" (2008), 박영사
- 이범찬, "「상법(하)」 제5판" (2008), 삼영사
- 이주흥, "실무손해배상책임법" (1997), 박영사
- 이필규, "2009년 독일 보험계약법(VVG)" (2009), 세창출판사
- 임용수, "보험법" (2006), 법률정보센터
- 장덕조, "보험법쟁점 연구 Ⅰ" (2002), 법영사
- 정동윤, "「상법(하)」 제4판" (2011), 법문사
- 정찬형, "상법강의(하)(제14판)" (2012), 박영사
- 최기원, "「보험법」 제3판" (2002), 박영사
- 최준선, "「보험법․해상법」 제5판" (2010), 삼영사
- 강재철, "책임보험과 피해자인 제3자, In 해상·보험법에 관한 제문제(하)" (1991), 법원행정처
- 김성태, "직접청구권의 본질", 고시연구 (1993), 고시연구사
- 김성태, "직접청구권의 성질과 시효, In 상사판례연구(Ⅱ)" (1996), 박영사
- 김태주, "자동차손해배상책임보험에서의 피해자의 직접청구권", 법학논고, 23 (1985), 경북대학교 법학연구원
- 김문재, "자동차손해보상책임보험에서의 피해자의 직접청구권", 상사판례연구, 1 (1986), 한국상사판례학회
- 문병일, "보험자에 대한 직접청구권의 법적 성질 - P&I 보험을 중심으로 -", 한국해법학회지, 32(2), pp.231~267 (2010), 한국해법학회
- 박세민, "책임보험상의 직접청구권을 둘러싼 법적논점에 관한 고찰", 안암법학, (27), pp.497~540 (2008), 안암법학회
- 박영준, "책임보험의 직접청구권", 고시계 (2010), 고시계사
- 박정국, "책임보험에서 직접청구권의 법적 성질에 관한 소고", 원광법학, 28(2), pp.145~169 (2012), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 서돈각, "자동차손해배상보장법상의 피해자의 직접청구권", 자보탑, (125) (1977), 동부그룹
- 양승규, "자동차강제책임보험과 임의책임보험의 소멸시효", 손해보험, (449) (2006), 대한손해보험협회
- 양승규, "피해자의 보험금 직접청구권의 법적 성질", 손해보험, (325) (1995), 대한손해보험협회
- 이용석, "책임보험에 있어서 피해자 직접청구권에 관한 고찰", 경남법학, 15 (1999), 경남대학교 법학연구소
- 임충희, "자동차책임보험에서의 피해자의 직접청구권에 관한 고찰", 보험학회지, 37 (1991), 한국보험학회
- 장경환, "자동차손해배상책임보험에서의 직접청구권의 성질과 손해배상청구권의 혼동", 경희법학, 38(1) (2003), 경희법학연구소
- 정경영, "공동불법행위 피해자의 직접청구권 : 대법원 1998. 7. 10 선고 97다17544 판결", 보험법연구 (1999), 삼지원
- 정경영, "피해자의 보험금 직접청구권, 보험법의 새로운 전망과 과제", 한국상사법학회 1999년 하계학술발표회 (1999)
- 정진옥, "직접청구권의 소멸시효기간과 그 기산점", 상사판례연구, 7 (1996), 한국상사판례학회
- 정진옥, "책임보험에서 피해자의 직접청구권의 소멸시효", 경성법학, 4 (1995), 경성대학교 법학연구소
- 최준선, "책임보험에 있어서 제3자의 보험자에 대한 직접청구권", 성균관법학, 13(2) (2001), 성균관대학교 비교법연구소
- 법무부, "상법개정특별분과위원회 회의록 제4권", ~ (1990)
- 송건웅, "보험법개정안에 대한 검토의견, 보험·해상법의 개정방향", 법무부 공청회자료 (1990)
- 山下友信, "責任保險被保險者の支拂不能ﾇと保險給付による被害者救濟, In 落合誠一先生還曆記念論文(商事法への提言)" (2004), 商事法務
- Colinvaux, "Law of Insurance" (1990), Sweet & Maxwell
- Inco & Co., "Insurance & Reinsurance Law Update", ~ (2010)
- Macolm A. Clarke, "the Law of Insurance Contracts" (1994), Lloyd's of London Press Ltd
- Robert E. Keeton, "Insurance Law" (1988), West Publishing
- Francis Gretz et Claude Pichot, "La loi sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre" (1985), L'Assurance Francaise
- Günter Bauer, "Die Kraftversicherung, 2 Aufl" (1983)
- Kim Eun-Kyung, "Die Rechtsstellung des Geschädigten in der Kraftfahrzeug- Haftpflichtversicherung im deutschen und koreanischen Recht", 박사, pp.1999
- Prölss-Martin, "Versicherungsvertragsgesetz, 25. Aufl" (1992)