부당승환계약 방지에 대한 비교법적 연구

Abstract

As life insurance market becomes saturated, replacement in life insurance tends to increase. Studies and reports, however, on replacement (churning or twisting) problems are hard to find. This paper attempts to examine cross-country replacement regulation comparison and to draw implications of current replacement regulations of Korea. According to German replacement regulation, the existing insurers argue that the replacing insurers improperly replace their life insurance, the accused insurers has to prove within a month that the accusation is not true. UK’s insurance suitability regulation includes detailed decision criteria on the life insurance suitability test in order to prevent producers’ subjective interpretation of the suitability. Most replacement laws of US states articulately stipulate the definition of replacement, the duties of producers, the replacing insurers and the existing insurers. The Codes of Conducts of Financial Service Councils of Australia adopt ‘the three-year claw back period’ clause to deter churning. Based on laws and regulations of these countries, current replacement laws of Korea appear not specific enough to deter churning and twisting. In oder to improve current replacement laws of Korea, this study suggests introducing the definition clause of replacement, adopting clauses the duties of producers, the existing insurers and the replacing insurers and finally imposing penalties on producers for early life insurance lapses like ‘the three year claw back period’clause.