만성신부전과 계약전 발병 부담보 조항의 관계

Disputes arising over insurance contracts are very diverse. Among them, the most recent problem is that the insurer 's terms and conditions only guarantee the occurrence of diseases after enrollment if a disease occurs before the insured person. This is particularly problematic in relation to highland duty. The offense period is applied to the breach of disclosure obligation. The content of the disclosure obligation is stipulated in Article 663 of the Commercial Act. The current Disease Protection clause is responsible for preventing moral hazard in insurance contracts. It also contributes to the risk management of the insurer. However, there is no problem in linking with the obligation system. The disclosure obligation is basically based on not notifying the policy contractor or insured person of any known matters. In this respect, it is questionable whether the current provision of the disease burden will be effective. Insurance accidents should occur within the period of actual insurance. The case in question was a problem stipulated to pay a sickness disability rehabilitation fund when a part of the body was lost or permanently lost due to a disease caused directly during the insurance period of the special provision. The insured person was a patient who continued to receive outpatient treatment for chronic renal failure diagnosis. In this case, it is a problem whether or not to exclude it as a case of a disease. Subjective obligations are subject to subjective requirements, but the provision of pre-contractual indemnification clauses does not provide insurance benefits if there is a high degree of disability prior to commencement of liability or a disease that causes hospitalization, irrespective of the subjective perception. In the case of Japan or the United States, the immunity of pre contracting diseases clause is recognized in terms of the goodness of the insurance system and the prevention of moral hazard. In the case of Germany, it is considered to be in contradiction with the one side reaching mandatory regulations of the highland duty system. In the domestic theory, it is difficult to say that the subsidy for pre-contract disease burden is unnecessary because there is a function to prevent the moral hazard of the policy contractor while maintaining the risk rate of the insurance accident. At first, There is also an opinion that emphasizes the importance of explaining. However, there is a precedent in which the risk taken by the insurance can be determined differently depending on the insurance product, so that the clause that stipulates the mental illness as the reason for the immunity is unfairly disadvantageous to the customer. There are several aspects of the notional obligation system that avoid the pre-contractual disease obligation clause. There is also a period of presumption, assuming that you are not informed of the original known facts. Therefore, it should be considered that it is difficult to have the effect because it is avoiding these constraints. Although the disease burden maintains some risk rate and prevents the moral hazard of the policyholder, it should be evaluated that it is in violation of Article 663 of the Commercial Act. Therefore, in case of this case, insurance money should be paid as high sickness disability rehabilitation fund. More precise research should be conducted on the relationship between the mandatory area requirement in the Commercial Code and the provisions in the contract.