법무보험계약에서 법인격부인론에 관한 비교법적 연구 -법무보험계약에서 법인격부인론의 적용문제를 중심으로- (A study on the doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil in legal affairs insurance — Focused on the legal case of the duty of Disclosure(or Representation) and exercising of the right to indemnity in l)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국기업법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 기업법연구 / 25권 / 1호 / 355 ~ 377페이지
· 저자명 : 권효상

초록

In the legal affairs insurance contract, all parties to the contract are under a strict duty to deal fully and frankly with each other. Thus, the potential parties to it are bound to volunteer to each other before the contract is concluded information which is material. As a result, the insurer should specify, deliver and explain general clause to the insured, and the insured (or an applicant for insurance) should disclose all facts that are 'material' information to the risk for which they are seeking cover, prior to the conclusion of the contract. Because of that reason, in the traffic accident case, after the insurer pay out on any claim made under the legal affairs insurance policy regardless of the insured' fault, in case of exercising of the right to indemnity in legal affairs insurance policy, if the insured were the corporation which have insufficient assets(property) but the controlling shareholder of that corporation who have sufficient assets(property), the problem will be occurred whether the insurer(the creditor) can bring the action to “pierce the corporate veil” and hold the controlling shareholder personally liable for his damages.
The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil has created to seek to hold the shareholder(members) to be liable for the actions of the corporation itself. In Walkovszky v. Carlton, the issue of that case is whether a claim that does not allege that the owners are conducting business in their personal capacities through the corporation is sufficient to state a cause of action for owner liability. Plaintiff Walkovsky brought this action to “pierce the corporate veil” and hold Carlton personally liable for his damages. The court rejected this theory, and holding that the corporate veil may not pierced merely because the corporation is part of a larger corporate entities. Splitting a single business up into many different corporate will not result in the controlling shareholder being held personally liable for the obligations of the corporate enterprise.
Finally, It is necessary that the introduction of the questionnaire and the examination standard under the legal affairs insurance policy. In case of exercising of the right to indemnity in legal affairs insurance policy, if the insured were the corporation, that measures can prevent the insured(the contractor) from commit(or make) an error which can be used for refraining from their liability(that is to say, moral harzard).

영어초록

In the legal affairs insurance contract, all parties to the contract are under a strict duty to deal fully and frankly with each other. Thus, the potential parties to it are bound to volunteer to each other before the contract is concluded information which is material. As a result, the insurer should specify, deliver and explain general clause to the insured, and the insured (or an applicant for insurance) should disclose all facts that are 'material' information to the risk for which they are seeking cover, prior to the conclusion of the contract. Because of that reason, in the traffic accident case, after the insurer pay out on any claim made under the legal affairs insurance policy regardless of the insured' fault, in case of exercising of the right to indemnity in legal affairs insurance policy, if the insured were the corporation which have insufficient assets(property) but the controlling shareholder of that corporation who have sufficient assets(property), the problem will be occurred whether the insurer(the creditor) can bring the action to “pierce the corporate veil” and hold the controlling shareholder personally liable for his damages.
The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil has created to seek to hold the shareholder(members) to be liable for the actions of the corporation itself. In Walkovszky v. Carlton, the issue of that case is whether a claim that does not allege that the owners are conducting business in their personal capacities through the corporation is sufficient to state a cause of action for owner liability. Plaintiff Walkovsky brought this action to “pierce the corporate veil” and hold Carlton personally liable for his damages. The court rejected this theory, and holding that the corporate veil may not pierced merely because the corporation is part of a larger corporate entities. Splitting a single business up into many different corporate will not result in the controlling shareholder being held personally liable for the obligations of the corporate enterprise.
Finally, It is necessary that the introduction of the questionnaire and the examination standard under the legal affairs insurance policy. In case of exercising of the right to indemnity in legal affairs insurance policy, if the insured were the corporation, that measures can prevent the insured(the contractor) from commit(or make) an error which can be used for refraining from their liability(that is to say, moral harzard).

참고자료

· 없음