보험수익자 변경에 대한 보험계약자 의사표시의 성격 – 대법원 2020.2.27. 선고 2019다204869 판결에 대한 평석을 중심으로 -

In the insurance contract, there is the concept of the insured, and in the person insurance, the concept of the beneficiary exists. Various combinations are possible between them, and the insurer entering into the contract can combine the parties. In the case of non-life insurance, the person who is supposed to receive insurance money is the insured. However, in person insurance, the person who insures the person's body is the insured. And the person who will receive the insurance payment becomes the insurance beneficiary. For example, if your son dies while your son puts insurance on your mother's body, you can configure your sister to take the insurance money. At this time, the son is the policyholder, the mother is the insured, and the sister is the beneficiary. In this case, it is not only insurance for others but also life insurance for others. At this time, an insurance contractor who is obligated to enter into an insurance contract and pay insurance premiums may designate or change the beneficiary. Disputes frequently arise in relation to the exercise of the right to designate or change. This study aims to examine the nature and contents of the policyholder's right to designate and change insurance beneficiaries, using the recent Supreme Court precedent as a consideration. As a result, many disputes occur. The policyholder who enters into an insurance contract and pays the premium has the right to point out and change the beneficiary. The right to designate and change insurance beneficiaries of these insurance contractors is a general right and is the right to form. However, you must notify the insurer to counter it. Even if the insurance company has not been notified, if the policyholder objectively changes the beneficiary, the fact can be proved and claimed to claim the claim. And since notification is only a counter-requirement, the latter insurance beneficiary can claim the return of the insurance money received by the former insurance beneficiary. In the same vein, since the new insurance beneficiary becomes the claimant, the old insurance beneficiary is legally changed to the new insurance beneficiary. However, the new insurance beneficiary can notify the insurer and claim the payment of the insurance money. Therefore, the Supreme Court's case is reasonable. Germany understands the right to designate and change insurance beneficiaries similarly to ours. In other words, the right to designate the beneficiary of insurance is regarded as the right to form as a one-way decision. In Germany, however, unlike ours, the insurance contract law provides for a prestigious provision regarding the claim amount of the beneficiary's insurance beneficiaries and the insurance claim ratio between the heirs. It is very important for life insurance contracts to specify the beneficiaries on time and properly. Accidents occur unexpectedly and due to the nature of life insurance, insurance money is paid after death, so wisdom is needed to make good use of the composition.