2009년도 보험법 판례의 동향과 그 연구

This paper is to study and analyze some important cases held by the Korean Supreme in 2009. First, this paper studies the concept of 'accidental'. Who should take burden of proof of the presence accidental influences the result of the insurance lawsuit. The insurance case that becomes a problem is a fire insurance case. In that case, the Supreme Court verdicts that the burden of proof lies in the insured and the definition of 'accidental' is far from that of the personal accidental insurance. Second, this paper debates the explanation duty of an insurer as applied to insurance coverage disputes. Courts and most scholars have argues for the soul of contract law. Under the traditional contract theory, the assent of both parties to the terms of an agreement is necessary for creation of an enforceable contract. Provisions excluding or limiting coverage, according to the theory, would not be enforceable because of "substantialness". However, it is very difficult to discern the substantial clause and the non-substantial. And so forth, this paper also explorers some the point at issues of insurance law. Third, this paper deals with the question whether injury, loss, or damage inflicted by a person insured under a insurance policy was "intentional" injury, loss, or damage within the scope of an intentional injury exclusion clause set forth in the Korean Commercial §659. Forth, the issue involves the duty of disclosure and multiple personal accident insurances. The insureds of the cases took multiple insurances for the purpose of deceiving the insurer, and did not answer questions on the other insurances. The Supreme Court construed the related matters, and this paper clarified the holding.