고지의무위반과 설명의무위반의 상호관계에 대한 연구 - 서울고등법원 2018. 5. 29. 선고 2017나2035357 판결에 대한 평석을 중심으로 -

Today, the private insurance system is taking an even more important role in the welfare of the people than in the state-run social security. This is because, even in case of unexpected accidents, it can be recovered through insurance guarantee and it is possible to escape economic difficulties. However, the core of the insurance system is the highland duty. It is very important for policy holders and insured to properly fulfill their obligation obligations. This is because you may or may not be able to get insurance benefits depending on whether you are there. There is a relationship between violation of obligation and explanatory duty. The Supreme Court of Korea has said that the terms repeating the provisions of the law are not subject to the obligation to explain the terms. However, the contents of the obligation are stipulated in Articles 651 and 655 of the Commercial Act. It is a question whether the repeating terms are subject to the obligation to explain the terms. It is the study to distinguish whether the content of the obligation is repeated as it is, and whether there is any special content to specify its contents. In the case of the Supreme Court, the relevant provisions stipulated that "when the insured uses the motorcycle on a regular basis, the special conditions are added and the insurance is taken." The problem was that the insured person was on a motorcycle and the insurance planner knew about it. At the time of insurance, the policyholder did not check that the motorcycle is not covered by insurance. The Seoul High Court considered that it is difficult for the policyholder to know that what they are subject to notice is individually determined in relation to the contents of each insurance contract. And accordingly the insurance payment should be paid. The disclosure obligation and the effect of the breach are laid down in Articles 651 and 655 of the Commercial Act. The Supreme Court sees that simply repeating the statute is not subject to explanation. However, it is necessary to differentiate the subject matter of the obligation to see whether it is the object of explanation in detail. As a comparative law, it is stipulated that the effect of the breach of obligation in the revision of the insurance contract law in 2007 is to be annulled or canceled due to violation of obligation. Therefore, the Seoul High Court's judgment is reasonable. In the future, the details of the obligation should be endowed with predictability by typing the contents to be explained. This can be done directly through the case. In the process, it should proceed with the study of foreign precedents.