오로지 또는 주로 타인을 위한 보험 - 대법원 2012. 6. 28. 선고 2012다25562 판결에 대한 비판 -

Commercial act art. 639(3) provide that in the case of insurance contract for benefit of third party, the policyholder is liable for paying the premium to the insurer. If the policyholder had been adjudged bankrupt or has delayed the payment of the premium, the third person also liable for paying the premium in so far as the third party does not wave his rights. Meanwhile, Commercial act art. 650(2) provide that if premium installments are not paid at an agreed time, the insurer may demand the policyholder to pay them within a reasonable period specified, and if he fails to do so, the insurer may rescinded the contract. And in the case of a policy effected on behalf of a specified third party, if the policyholder delays the payment of the premium payment, the insurer shall not rescind or terminate the contract to without demanding also the third party to pay it within a resonable specified time. By the art. 649(1), in that case of voluntary termination of insurance contract prior to occurrence of the insurance accident, the policyholder shall not terminate the contract without obtaining the consent of the third party or carrying the insurance certificate. Until now, all those provisions has been applied to all insurance contract for benefit of third party. But June 28. 2012 the supreme court judged that those provisions only apply in the case of the insurance contract is "exclusively or mainly for benefit of third party". The court devide into two the insurance contract for benefit of third party. However no legal basis for such classification, will caused confusion concerning the legal statues of the designated beneficiary. For the reasons mentioned above, the writer conclude that the supreme court's judgement in this case is wrong.