보험약관대출의 법적성질 - 대상판결 : 대법원 2007.9.28. 선고 2005다15598 전원합의체 판결 -

The owner of a life insurance policy with cash values can obtain money using the policy as security. The policyowner can receive an advance of cash from the insurer under the loan provision of the policy. It is called 'a policy loan'. Opinions on the legal characterization of the policy loan are divided into two views. One opinion considers a policy loan as true loan the creates a creditor-debtor relationship between the insurer and the policyowener and perceive a policy loan contract and insurance contract as two independent contracts(consumption loan view). Anther opinion considers a policy loan as advance of the cash (value) that the insurer have to pay out for the policyowener. Under this opinion, a policy loan contract that is involved in a insurance contact is one identical contract (advance view). The Courts in Korea had taken a consumption loan view prior to this court decision. However the Supreme Court held that a policy loan is eventually advance of the cash value by this decision I think that the policy loan is a misnomer. A policy loan is not truly a loan. A true loan is the transfer of money by the creditor to the debtor, upon agreement that the debtor will return to the creditor an equivalent sum at the late. A policy loan differs from a true loan in that the policyowner does not agree to repay the money the insurer transferred to her. Rather, A policy loan is an advance of money that the insurer must eventually pay out under the policy. Thus I am for the advance view that the majority in this decision say. However, the catch is that this decision did not say whether the plus agreement on the repay date is void or not.