메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
홍진희 (충북대학교)
저널정보
한양법학회 한양법학 한양법학 제31권 제3집(통권 제71집)
발행연도
2020.8
수록면
169 - 197 (29page)
DOI
10.35227/HYLR.2020.08.31.3.169

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
There are two main characteristics in Indonesia Safeguard Regulations. First, the WTO SThe "circumstance" and "notice of circumstances" under the D&O liability insurance policy that was the issue of the this jury are related to the "claims-made basis" which are the criteria for insurance accidents. Adopting the "claims-made basis" would, in principle, result in no insurance coverage unless claims were filed against the insured during the insurance period. In particular, an executive who is an insured will not be able to receive insurance protection if he or she is in a situation such as refusing to renew his or her insurance contract, even though he or she may file a claim after any wrongful act. The notice of such circumstance system was prepared in preparation for such cases. Namely, if during the Policy Period or Extended Reporting Period an Insured becomes aware of circumstances which could give rise to a Claim and gives written notice of such circumstances to the Company, then any Claims subsequently arising from such circumstances shall be considered to have been made during the Policy Period or the Extended Reporting Period in which the circumstances were first reported to the Company. On the other hand, under the "claims-made basis", it is not only difficult for an insurer to determine whether an executive"s wrongful act were performed long before the commencement of the insurance period, i.e., whether an insurer is liable for damages for old past history, but also has the potential to reverse the choice. In such cases, it was adopted to clarify their responsibilities by limiting the scope of the insurer"s liability, such as "Exclusion of before Commission date of Insurance" and "retroactive date".
The first issue in the jury was whether the ‘circumstance’ existed within the insurance period of the first insurance contract. In light of the facts of this jury, it is thought reasonable for the court to judge that there was a "circumstance in which the claim was reasonably expected to be filed". The second issue was whether there was a proper ‘notice of such circumstance’ for the insurer of the first insurance contract. The court acknowledged its validity as to whether the notice of such circumstance was a valid expression of opinion. However, in the light of the facts, it is difficult to say that the notice contains information that the insurer reasonably requires to anticipate the insured"s loss to be compensated. As a result, I do not think that the insurer is liable for insurance payments until the insured has given proper "notice of such circumstance".

목차

Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 대상판결의 개요
Ⅲ. 대상판결의 평석
Ⅳ. 맺으며
【참고문헌】
Abstract

참고문헌 (16)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)

  • 대법원 2019. 1. 17. 선고 2016다277200 판결

    [1] 보험약관은 신의성실의 원칙에 따라 해당 약관의 목적과 취지를 고려하여 공정하고 합리적으로 해석하되, 개개 계약 당사자가 기도한 목적이나 의사를 참작하지 않고 평균적 고객의 이해가능성을 기준으로 보험단체 전체의 이해관계를 고려하여 객관적·획일적으로 해석하여야 한다. 위와 같은 해석을 거친 후에도 약관 조항이 객관적으로 다의적으로 해석되고 그

    자세히 보기

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2020-360-001156860