계약전 발병 부담보조항의 유･무효에 관한 연구

Over the past several decades, the pre-existing condition exclusion clause has been used as a basis for refusing payment of accidents and disease insurance money in many countries. Supreme court of korea deals with the case under the premise that clause is valid. In contrast, The Financial Disputes Mediation Committee within the Financial Supervisory Service decide that pre-existing clause are void because insurer skillfully evaded the commercial act Sec.651 and breach of Sec.663.(July.27.2017. No.2017-9). The mediation plan was accepted by the persons concerned and have the same effect as a judicial compromise. But still uses pre-existing clause in many policies. Historically and essentially, pre-existing clause is quite different from the duty of disclosure clause. Therefore, it is doubtful whether this clause invalid merely because this clause arises confusion with the duty of disclosure clause. For the protection of policyholders, there is also a way to make it easier to express the terms, to strengthen the duty of explanation, to limit its application to some serious diseases, or to shorten the duration of this clause. In countries outside of Germany, the use of this clause is restricted, but not prohibited, and the mediation plan does not meet global standards. And, to date, to use preexisting clause seems to be an insurance practice in each country that insurers can use this clause under certain restrictions if they so desire. Therefore, the clause does not mean that it is all valid or invalid. It shall be determined whether it is valid or invalid according to the content of the clause.