워런티관련 대법원 2010.9.9. 선고 2009다105383 판결의 연구

Korean Supreme Court recently decided that when marine insurer did not explain the meaning and effect of the warranty, the clauses about warranty did not be incorporated into insurance contract. This position is considered to be greatly different from Supreme Court’s ruling decision. And so many professors published the comment on the Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105383, Decided September 9, 2010. Warranty is a legal system which limits the insurer’s underwriting risks by changing specific circumstances to contractual promises. And so, The insurance contract party can transfer and distribute marine risks speedily and reasonably by taking less time and costs. But many countries’ researchers has criticized that the marine warranties are against the insureds, because they do not take account of the risks’ importance, need not the causal connection between breach of warranty and loss, therefore marine insure is discharged from the date of the breach of warranty. Some reforms have been proposed to alleviate the full rigour of the warranty. One of them is that the insurer should not entitled to rely on a breach of warranty unless the insured has been provided with the written statement of the warranty’s legal effect. The warranty is one of the less attractive features of English insurance law, and almost all marine insurance researchers think that the rigorous consequence of the warranty should be reformed. I think that the Supreme Court partly is right because it want to protect the insured by applying the explanation duty under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act. But I do not agree with the decision because it is contrary to the internationality of the marine insurance, and it is worried that the legal safety and international uniformity are greatly damaged.