최근 한국 상법(보험편)의 개정내용에 관한 연구 (A study on the Recently Reformed Korean Commercial Code (Insurance Contract Law))

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국금융법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 금융법연구 / 14권 / 1호 / 79 ~ 122페이지
· 저자명 : 정찬형

초록

2014년 국회 법제사법위원회가 중심이 되어 개정한 개정상법(제4편 보험)은 2007년 12월 31일 국무회의를 거쳐 확정한 정부의 상법개정안 중 일부를 발췌하여 국회를 통과시킨 것으로, 정부의 상법개정안 중 좋은 내용이 빠진 것도 있고 또한 큰 논란이 없는 내용만 부분적으로 발췌하다보니 불균형한 면도 있다. 따라서 2014년 개정상법(제4편 보험)에서는 좀 더 신중하게 논의되었어야 할 사항이 성급하게 입법됨으로써, 앞으로 해석상 많은 논란을 야기할 수 있거나 또는 문제점을 제기할 수 있는 부분이 있는데, 이의 주요한 사항은 다음과 같다.
보험대리상 등의 권한에 관한 규정(개정상법 제646조의2)은 2007년 8월 10일 정부(법무부)가 입법예고한 개정시안과 같이 보험체약대리상과 보험중개대리상의 권한을 구분하여 명확히 규정하였어야 할 것으로 본다.
보험금청구권의 소멸시효기간에 관한 규정(개정상법 제662조)에서는 보험계약자 등을 보호하기 위하여, 시효기간의 연장과 함께, 그 기산점에 관하여도 상법 제658조와 관련하여 명확하게 규정하였어야 할 것으로 본다.
연금보험과 관련하여 개정상법 제727조 제2항은 보험금의 순수한 지급방식(분할지급)에 불과하므로, 이에 연금보험을 포섭하기 위하여는 2007년 8월 10일 법무부가 입법예고한 내용과 같이‘연금으로’의 문언을 추가하여야 할 것으로 본다. 또한 양로보험과 관련하여 보험사고의 발생 없이 보험기간이 종료한 때에 보험계약자 등에게 보험금액(환급금)을 지급하는 보험계약은 생명보험계약(생사혼합보험계약)에서뿐만 아니라 손해보험계약에서도 존재하므로, 손해보험계약에서도 이에 관한 법적 근거를 상법에서 마련하여 줄 필요가 있다고 본다.
심신박약자의 사망보험계약 체결 또는 단체보험에서 동의를 허용하는 규정(개정상법 제732조 단서)을 신설한 것은, 심신박약자의 보호 및 민법상 제한능력자의 행위능력과의 부조화 등에서 폐지되어야 한다고 본다.
단체보험에서 피보험자의 서면동의를 받도록 한 규정(개정상법 제735조의3 제3항)을 신설한 것은, 우리 대법원판례 및 헌법재판소의 판례에 비추어 성급한 입법이 아닌가 생각된다.
2014년 개정상법이 보험사기 방지를 위한 규정을 두지는 않고, 2016년에 보험사기방지 특별법을 별도로 제정한 것은 아쉽게 생각한다.

영어초록

The insurance contract law in Korean Commercial Code(hereinafter referred to as "K.C.C.") was reformed in March 11th, 2014(Law No. 12397)(the latest reformation in the insurance contract law) and is in force from March 12th, 2015(hereinafter referred to as "2014 Reform"). Several Articles in 2014 Reform should have been more deliberated in my view. I will comment on these matters as followings.
1. Article 646-2 of 2014 Reform is newly regulated about powers of insurance agent(including sales agent and marketing agent) and insurance salesman. But the power of insurance marketing agent is not precisely stipulated, and scholars are arguing the scope of the power of insurance marketing agent. I suggest that the power of insurance marketing agent should be clearly regulated differently from that of insurance sales agent in Article 646-2. Namely, the power of insurance sales agent should be regulated in Article 646-2 Paragraph 1, and that of insurance marketing agent should be regulated in Article 646-2 Paragraph 2 just like those of Government Amendment Draft of August 10th, 2007.
2. Article 662 of 2014 Reform extended the extinctive prescription period of the claim of the amount insured to 3 years from 2 years and extended that of the claim of premium to 2 years from 1 year.
But the base date of the extinctive prescription period is not regulated yet. I suggest that the base date of the extinctive prescription period should be regulated with reference to K.C.C. Articles 657, 658. Namely, (ⅰ) the base date should be the next day immediately following the last day of such term in case where the term for the payment of insurance benefits is specified, and (ⅱ) the base date should be 10 days from the day when the insurance company determines the amount of benefits immediately after being notified by the beneficiary of occurrence of the risk covered in case where such payment term is not specified. But if there were circumstances where the beneficiary, without his or her negligence, could not know of the occurrence of the risk covered, the base date should be the date when he or she knew or could have known of the occurrence of the risk covered.
3. 2014 Reform deleted Article 735-2(Annuity Insurance) and regulated newly that the amount insured can be paid separately in all contracts of person insurance if the both parties(insurer and insured) makes such agreement in Article 727 Paragraph 2. But the word "as an annuity" should be inserted in Article 727 Paragraph 2 just like that of Government Amendment Draft of August 10th, 2007 in my opinion.
2014 Reform deleted Article 735(Endowment Insurance), because Article 730(Liability of Life Insurer) includes such insurance. But even in non-life insurance the insurer can pay the insured the insurance benefits(return of premium) in case that the duration of coverage terminates without occurrence of the risk covered. Therefore, 2014 Reform should have regulated the above mentioned case in non-life insurance in my view.
4. 2014 Reform allowed newly a feeble-minded person to effect the insurance and to consent as the insured in Article 732.
But the above mentioned regulation should be deleted in order to protect such feeble-minded person.
5. 2014 Reform regulated newly that the assured(Versicherungsnehmer) making insurance contract in a group insurance should get the written consent of the insured in case he or she nominates as the beneficiary of the insurance contract any other person except the insured or his or her successor and there is no clear statement permitting insurance contract for himself or herself in the group regulation(K.C.C. Art.735-3 Para.3). In other words, the assured marking insurance contract in a group insurance should get the written consent of the insured in order to nominate himself or herself as the beneficiary of the insurance contract.
But Korean Supreme Court decided that the assured in a group insurance can make insurance contract nominating himself or herself as the beneficiary under the Pre-2014 Reform, and Korean Constitutional Court also decided that the K.C.C. Article 735-3 Paragraph 1 under pre-2014 Reform is not against Korean Constitutional Code. Therefore, it is not prudential in my view that 2014 Reform regulated newly K.C.C. Article 735-3 Paragraph 3 according to partial academic opinions.

참고자료

· 없음