자기부담금제도와 관련한 최근 판례의 비판적 검토 및 합리적 제도 개선방안에 대한 연구

As seen in the case of car insurance deductable so far, it has been resolved by three methods. Namely, practice in the insurance industry, existing judgment and recent change precedent etc. The insurance industry's compensation practices can be seen as making the most of the purpose of the deductable system by fully applying the insured's deductable while ensuring the liability of the other vehicle. In addition, these results can reduce the insurance company's expenses and maintain the benefits of raising awareness of moral hazard and accident prevention through the insured's own burden. However, the recent mainstream case regarding self-payments has been judged to be a loss that the other insurer should compensate for by accepting the law of the Supreme Court's 2014다46211 ruling, which contradicts the intention of the other party in the insurance contract and disperses the premise of the insurance premium calculation. It is also a judgment that has the risk of discarding the purpose of introducing a self-burden system, discouraging the practice of preferential treatment of self-imposed insurance, preventing the proper performance of consumer protection due to quick compensation, and causing the insurance order to fall into great confusion. Self-burden arrangements contribute to the establishment of a sound insurance order by preventing moral hazard in society, while insurance policyholders can reduce insurance premiums through the system, insurers can reduce all expenses, such as compensation processing costs. Therefore, in the case presented, when the insurer makes a priority compensation and makes a claim based on the amount of 800,000 won, the claim of 800,000 won includes all the rights of the insured. In addition, the deduction of the self-burden cannot be regarded as an unprotected loss as a result of one's own choice, so the court can regard the insured's self-burden as a factor of consideration for calculating the total damage, and the court can order the captain's claimant to pay 500,000 won equivalent to the ratio of negligence of the other's vehicle. Because of this, the insured has no longer exercised a claim for damages against the other insurance company, and the insurance company that paid the insurance has been taking follow-up procedures through planning. In particular, the self-burden is based on an agreement with the insurer, and there is no reason to put the liability of a third party for damages before the insurer's right of the insurer. This is because within the scope of the self-burden, the insured's right to the other party can be seen as giving up or giving up his or her right to stand guard in an internal relationship. If self-burden is regarded as an unprotected loss in car insurance and the amount to be compensated by the other insurer, the meaning of the deductible agreement will be tarnished, and disadvantages such as higher insurance premiums will certainly affect the overall interests of society, so the court needs to be careful in determining the relevant case. In addition, the financial regulator should review the overall self-burden system and make efforts to improve the policy system so that the original purpose of the self-burden system can be properly implemented.