무면허·음주운전 면책약관의 법적 쟁점과 개선방안

There was an exception clause that accident insurance is not given to the very person of an accident caused by unlicensed and drunk driving in a volume of self-physical accident of automobile insurance in South Korea until April 2000, but this clause has been deleted after the ruling of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. If there is a car accident in unlicensed and drunk driving, a causal relationship between the driving behavior and accident can be presumed unless there is a special reason, and it is showed that although a driver perceives that regular results such as injury or death by degree of accident can occur, the driver thinks that it can’t be helped and then carries out the driving. Therefore, the stance agreeing on the exception clause should be held for an insurer not to protect insurance of a drunk driver. When insurance indemnities are conducted for those who violate the traffic laws, it has a bad influence on the improvement of their consciousness of law, so the possibility to be exposed to a danger of a deadly traffic accident increases. In addition, most well-intentioned policy-holders’ attention of unlicensed and drunk driving diminishes, so moral laxity that if insurance indemnities can be received it is good to receive as much money as they can is aroused. However, the precedent of the Supreme Court stretches the meaning of rule territory in comparison to the object of the present law by making regulation of Article 663 of the Commercial Law as a scapegoat, so runs counter to general knowledge. In spite of an item that should be corrected as soon as possible, it is expected that this legal principle is not easily changed. Therefore, legislation-theoretical access will be a more effective method, and Article 737 Section 2 of the Amendments in the Commercial Law in 2008 and 2013 made insurers assume the responsibility for the payment of insurance