타인의 사망보험에서 피보험자의 동의 흠결시 법적 효과에 관한 연구

According to Art. 731(1) of Korean Commercial Code, the policyholder must acquire the insured's authorization before making the insurance contract under which the policyholder differs from the insured. The case of 2005Da11612, 11619 held by Korean Supreme Court related with the interpretation of the above Article. This article deals with major issues of the decision: first, whether the insurance contract is interpreted as still void even though the policyholder acquires the insured's authorization after its conclusion, and whether the above article needs to be reformed as providing that the insurer be not allowed to claim the voidness of the contract when the policyholder omitted the insured's authorization before the time provided because of the failure by the insurer's intermediary to explain to him the requirement of the authorization but acquires it afterwards; second, whether the recognition of the intermediary's duty to explain is desirable, and if so which is its legal basis, and whether the requirement of authorization could reasonably be an object of the duty to explain; finally, some legal issues surrounding the insurer's responsibility to pay damages when its intermediary neglected to explain the requirement to the policyholder when mediating the insurance contract.