判例로 나타난 保險契約의 意義와 特性

Abstract

This paper is to study and analyze some important cases held by the Korean Supreme in the past years. This paper studies the concept of 'accidental'. Who should take burden of proof of the presence accidental influences the result of the insurance lawsuit. The insurance case that becomes a problem is a fire insurance case. In that case, the Supreme Court verdicts that the burden of proof lies in the insured and the definition of 'accidental' is far from that of the personal accidental insurance. This paper debates the explanation duty of an insurer as applied to insurance coverage disputes. Courts and most scholars have argues for the soul of contract law. Under the traditional contract theory, the assent of both parties to the terms of an agreement is necessary for creation of an enforceable contract. Provisions excluding or limiting coverage, according to the theory, would not be enforceable because of "substantialness". However, it is very difficult to discern the substantial clause and the non-substantial. And so forth, this paper also explorers some the point at issues of insurance law. The subject of this study is also temporary protection of insurance. A substantial period of time may pass between the moment insurance is applied for and the date when an insurance policy is issued. This occurs because an applicant is dealing with a sales representative who does not have the authority to issue a policy. A lack of coverage before the issuance of an insurance policy, especially when the period extends for weeks or months, is disadvantageous to an applicant. The Supreme Court construed the related regulation, and this paper clarified the hloding. This paper studies the clause of the fraudulent insurance claims. The clause make the insurance contract void if the insured deceive the insurer in the process of claim. And, this paper deals with the question whether injury, loss, or damage inflicted by a person insured under a insurance policy was "intentional" injury, loss, or damage within the scope of an intentional injury exclusion clause set forth in the Korean Commercial §659. Another issue that this paper studies is the life insurance of the third person. without documental consent of the third person before the conclusion of contract, the insurance contract is void. Even though the third person ratify after the conclusion contract, the contract may not be effective. The Court confirm this legal principle.