2014年度 保險法 判例의 動向과 그 硏究

This paper is to study and analyze some important cases held by the Korean Supreme Court in 2014. First, the issue involves the difference between supply of services and insurance. To draw the between services and insurance, the Korean supreme court resorted to a “principal object” test – also it could be referred to as the primary purpose test. Second, the Korean Commercial Code §724 ① stipulates that a third party may claim against an insurer. This Code was set for the protection of victims. The Korean Supreme Court holds that the insurer may not pay the sum inured to insured without victim's satisfaction. Third, the safety belt - reduction clause is void due to the Korean Commercial Code §663. The court dealt 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 personal accident insurance has been dealt on the issue of reduction of the claim. The court holds that insurance company can subtract the claim in the ratio of the already suffered disease. However the holding needs to be scrutinized in the aspects of the nature of a personal insurance. Fifth, The Korean Supreme Court clarified the duty to explain of financial institutions. Sixth, The Korean Supreme Court clarifies the scope of driving insured. If the named insured opposes, no one can be a driving insured. Seventh, the automobile insurance policy generally provides that insured- that is, the covered persons, including the named insured and his or her family members who reside in the same household- are covered "for the ownership, maintenance, or use of auto." This means each of these persons is insured both as an operator of the vehicle designed in the insurance policy. This paper attempts to identify the exact meaning of the policy.