타인을 위한 보험에 있어서 계약 해지의 요건에 관한 연구

Abstract

Under Article 649(Voluntary Termination of Contracts Prior to Occurrence of Perils Insured against) of the Commercial Act, A policyholder may terminate a contract in whole or in part at any time before a peril insured against occurs : Provided, That in cases of an insurance contract prescribed in Article 639(Insurance for Benefits of Third Party), the policyholder shall not terminate the contract without obtaining the consent of the third party or carrying the insurance policy with him/her. Should we consider the requirement for termination to meet both 'obtaining the consent of the third party' and 'carrying the insurance policy'? Or should we interpret that meeting only one of them can terminate the contract? Currently, most insurance law references interprets that the termination of an insurance contract requires only one of 'obtaining the consent of the third party' and 'carrying the insurance policy'. In addition, there were multiple-choice questions in nation-certified qualification tests several times, such as insurance expert tests. Looking at the legislative purpose at the time of the amendment of the law in 1991, it is certain that ‘obtaining the consent of the third party’ was a requirement, but it is doubtful how it could be interpreted that most insurance law references and insurance expert tests can terminate the contract with insurance policy only. In this paper, I proved through several cases and logical methods that there are problems in interpreting existing commercial law regulations. And it justified that the requirement of termination meets both 'obtaining the consent of the third party' and the 'carrying the insurance policy'. In particular, in the case of guarantee insurance, which is a kind of insurance for benefits of third party, in order to protect the insured, 'obtaining the consent of the third party' must be a mandatory requirement. If the current provision is properly interpreted according to the purpose of the original legislation, there would be no problem. However, even if the current provision is correct, the explanation is difficult and controversial enough. An easier and clearer amendment is as follows. “Article 649 (Voluntary Termination of Contracts Prior to Occurrence of Perils Insured against) (1) A policyholder may terminate a contract in whole or in part at any time before a peril insured against occurs: Provided, That in cases of an insurance contract prescribed in Article 639, the policyholder must obtain the consent of the third party and carry an insurance policy at the same time to terminate the contract.”Under Article 649(Voluntary Termination of Contracts Prior to Occurrence of Perils Insured against) of the Commercial Act, A policyholder may terminate a contract in whole or in part at any time before a peril insured against occurs : Provided, That in cases of an insurance contract prescribed in Article 639(Insurance for Benefits of Third Party), the policyholder shall not terminate the contract without obtaining the consent of the third party or carrying the insurance policy with him/her. Should we consider the requirement for termination to meet both 'obtaining the consent of the third party' and 'carrying the insurance policy'? Or should we interpret that meeting only one of them can terminate the contract? Currently, most insurance law references interprets that the termination of an insurance contract requires only one of 'obtaining the consent of the third party' and 'carrying the insurance policy'. In addition, there were multiple-choice questions in nation-certified qualification tests several times, such as insurance expert tests. Looking at the legislative purpose at the time of the amendment of the law in 1991, it is certain that ‘obtaining the consent of the third party’ was a requirement, but it is doubtful how it could be interpreted that most insurance law references and insurance expert tests can terminate the contract with insurance policy only. In this paper, I proved through several cases and logical methods that there are problems in interpreting existing commercial law regulations. And it justified that the requirement of termination meets both 'obtaining the consent of the third party' and the 'carrying the insurance policy'. In particular, in the case of guarantee insurance, which is a kind of insurance for benefits of third party, in order to protect the insured, 'obtaining the consent of the third party' must be a mandatory requirement. If the current provision is properly interpreted according to the purpose of the original legislation, there would be no problem. However, even if the current provision is correct, the explanation is difficult and controversial enough. An easier and clearer amendment is as follows. “Article 649 (Voluntary Termination of Contracts Prior to Occurrence of Perils Insured against) (1) A policyholder may terminate a contract in whole or in part at any time before a peril insured against occurs: Provided, That in cases of an insurance contract prescribed in Article 639, the policyholder must obtain the consent of the third party and carry an insurance policy at the same time to terminate the contract.”