개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Insurer's exceptions clause implies a certain reason for exempting insurer's responsibility for shouldering to claimant for insurance-money payment when risk covered occurs that is fixed by contract of insurance.
Article 659, Clause 1 in the commercial law is placing limit upon a case that risk covered, which was fixed insurer's exceptions clause in contract of insurance, was created by party insuring or insured or by beneficiary's intention or gross negligence. The reason is because a case of leading to risk covered due to intention or gross negligence in party insuring not only is lacking in contingency as risk covered, but also is opposed to the Doctrine of Good Faith and Sincerityㆍgood public order and customs.
And, the text of Article 663 in the commercial law is prescribing so that the insurer cannot allow disadvantageous contents to party insuring to be included in contract of insurance with special clause.
By the way, Article 732-2 in the commercial law pertinent to life insurance is prescribing the possibility of being protected from insurance even in case of risk covered due to gross negligence in party insuring. In other words, the insurer can be exempted from responsibility only in a case that risk covered occurred due to intention in party insuring.
Also, Article 739 in the commercial law pertinent to accident insurance is applying the provisions on life insurance except Article 732 in the commercial law pertinent to accident insurance. Accordingly, even in case of accident insurance, the insurer bears responsibility same as life insurance for risk covered due to gross negligence in party insuring.
By the way, the conventional clauses of self-body accident insurance and accident insurance in insurance company were prescribing it to be exempted in case of risk covered due to unlicensed driving and drunk driving.
Regarding this, the Supreme Court judged that even gross negligence is protected by insurance, thereby having denied the effect of Exceptions clause in the clauses of accident insurance. Also, the Constitutional Court supported the precedent of the Supreme Court by ruling that the bill is constitutional in case of requesting violation of the constitution in Article 732-2 of the commercial law.
The precedent in the Supreme Court and the decision in the Constitutional Court were raised strong criticism. In other words, the precedent in the Supreme Court and the decision in the Constitutional Court are said not only to encourage unlicensed drivingㆍdrunk driving, which are criminal behaviors and have high risk, but also to be opposed to insurance principle of having proposition as contingency in accident.
For this reason, the Partially Revised Bill of the Commercial Law was submitted to the National Assembly on August 6, 2008.
Consequently, this study aims to suggest a plan for legislation by examining the Exceptions clause of accident insurance, and the process of development in discussion in the meantime about this, and by examining the contents in the Partially Revised Bill of the Commercial Law.
Article 659, Clause 1 in the commercial law is placing limit upon a case that risk covered, which was fixed insurer's exceptions clause in contract of insurance, was created by party insuring or insured or by beneficiary's intention or gross negligence. The reason is because a case of leading to risk covered due to intention or gross negligence in party insuring not only is lacking in contingency as risk covered, but also is opposed to the Doctrine of Good Faith and Sincerityㆍgood public order and customs.
And, the text of Article 663 in the commercial law is prescribing so that the insurer cannot allow disadvantageous contents to party insuring to be included in contract of insurance with special clause.
By the way, Article 732-2 in the commercial law pertinent to life insurance is prescribing the possibility of being protected from insurance even in case of risk covered due to gross negligence in party insuring. In other words, the insurer can be exempted from responsibility only in a case that risk covered occurred due to intention in party insuring.
Also, Article 739 in the commercial law pertinent to accident insurance is applying the provisions on life insurance except Article 732 in the commercial law pertinent to accident insurance. Accordingly, even in case of accident insurance, the insurer bears responsibility same as life insurance for risk covered due to gross negligence in party insuring.
By the way, the conventional clauses of self-body accident insurance and accident insurance in insurance company were prescribing it to be exempted in case of risk covered due to unlicensed driving and drunk driving.
Regarding this, the Supreme Court judged that even gross negligence is protected by insurance, thereby having denied the effect of Exceptions clause in the clauses of accident insurance. Also, the Constitutional Court supported the precedent of the Supreme Court by ruling that the bill is constitutional in case of requesting violation of the constitution in Article 732-2 of the commercial law.
The precedent in the Supreme Court and the decision in the Constitutional Court were raised strong criticism. In other words, the precedent in the Supreme Court and the decision in the Constitutional Court are said not only to encourage unlicensed drivingㆍdrunk driving, which are criminal behaviors and have high risk, but also to be opposed to insurance principle of having proposition as contingency in accident.
For this reason, the Partially Revised Bill of the Commercial Law was submitted to the National Assembly on August 6, 2008.
Consequently, this study aims to suggest a plan for legislation by examining the Exceptions clause of accident insurance, and the process of development in discussion in the meantime about this, and by examining the contents in the Partially Revised Bill of the Commercial Law.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 상해보험의 면책약관
Ⅲ. 면책약관의 유효성 논의
Ⅳ. 개정안상의 면책사유
Ⅴ. 결론
參考文獻
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (1)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
2008년 상법 개정안에 반영된 보험건전성을 위한 정책의 비판
법과 정책연구
2009 .01
-
일본의 新保險法의 제정
法學論文集
2008 .01
-
고지의무에 대한 입법론적 고찰-보험소비자보호의 관점에서-
법과 정책연구
2008 .01
-
무보험자동차에 의한 상해보험의 중복보험규정 적용여부에 관한 고찰 － 대법원 2006.11.10. 선고 2005다35516 －
경영법률
2007 .01
-
의료과실과 상해보험 보험사고 : 대법원 2010.8.19. 선고 2008다78491,78507 판결에 대한 평석을 중심으로
기업법연구
2013 .12
-
상법 제663조의 해석범위에 대한 재검토 : 판례를 중심으로
기업법연구
2009 .09
-
보험소비자보호에 관한 연구 –2012년 입법예고된 상법 보험편 개정안 통칙편을 중심으로-
원광법학
2013 .01
-
상해보험과 상해의 개념 - 대법원 2014.4.30. 선고 2012다76553 판결에 대한 평석을 중심으로 -
경영법률
2015 .01
-
생명보험표준약관상 자살면책조항에 대한 일고찰
경영법률
2008 .01
-
보험약관의 개정에 따른 다른 보험계약의 고지‧통지의무의 재검토
경영법률
2013 .01
-
중복보험의 개별보험종목 적용에 관한 법적고찰 —책임보험과 법무보험의 중복보험 문제를 중심으로—
경영법률
2012 .01
-
현행 자기신체사고담보 약관의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구
입법과 정책
2014 .01
-
보험자의 면책과 생명보험표준약관상 자살부책조항
경영법률
2007 .01
-
책임보험에서의 내부관계와 대피해자관계에 관한 고찰- 독일 법제와 비교를 중심으로 -
경영법률
2014 .01
-
피보험이익과 타보험조항에 관한 연구 : 자동차보험과 산재보험 중심으로
한양법학
2012 .02
-
일본 보험법개정에서의 보험금지급채무의 이행기와 지급지체
보험학회지
2010 .01
-
보험약관의 교부ㆍ설명의무
강원법학
2008 .06
-
보험사고의 초래에 대한 법리연구
외법논집
2012 .01
-
보험법상 보험사고의 의미에 대한 일 고찰
기업법연구
2004 .09
-
無保險自動車의 운행에 의한 傷害保險의 法的 構造에 관한 一 考察
기업법연구
2003 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
의료과실과 상해보험약관상 면책조항 : 미국판례와 우리판례의 비교를 통한 면책조항의 타당성
김성진
기업법연구
2012
.12
생명보험계약상 면책기간 내 피보험자의 정신질환으로 인한 자살에 대한 보험자의 재해사망보험금 지급의무 : 대법원 2016. 5. 12. 선고 2015다243347 판결, 대법원 2006. 3. 10. 선고 2005다49713 판결
윤은경
법학연구
2016
.08
자기신체사고담보의 안전띠 미착용에 따른 감액약관의 효력인정과 관련된 대법원 판례평석 : 대법원 2014. 9. 4. 선고 2012다204808 판결을 중심으로
이규만
법학연구
2015
.03
영국법상 보험위부의 승인과 효력에 관한 연구 : 대판 2013. 9. 13. 선고 2011다81190, 81206을 중심으로
李正元
저스티스
2014
.12
매수인의 사후이행청구권(Nacherfüllungsanspruch) : 독일민법상 자동차 매도인의 하자담보책임을 중심으로
안병하
한양법학
2013
.08
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-366-002240460