국적취득조건부 선체용선자의 피보험자 적격성 (대법원 2019. 12. 27. 선고 2017다208232, 208249 판결)

The insured should have insurable interest. The bareboat charterer has insurable interest. The bareboat charterer with hire purchase condition has more strong insurable interest than the mere bareboat charterer. Because the charterer pays borrowed money for the vessel by way of installment, it has expectation right for the title of the vessel under the BBCHP. The bareboat charterer was not listed as the insured when it enters into hull insurance contract with the insurer after it made the BBCHP contract with the ship owner. The Korean Supreme Court regarded the contract as a kind of the bare boat charter party with the option of paying 20% of the whole vessel’s price at the last moment of the charter period. The court said that the contract was very similar to the simple BBC, but different from the BBCHP. It found that the charterer did not have any insurable interest to receive the insurance proceeds because it paid the insurance premium as a simple charterage, not installment of vessel’s price. Not the charterer but the manager was listed as the insured. The charterer as the plaintiff claimed that it was the undisclosed agent under the English law. However, the KSC decided that there was no designation of the manager as the agent by the charterer as a result which it did not meet requirements for the undisclosed agent. The court rendered that the charterer could not be regarded as the insured. The plaintiff argued that the actual payment as hire under the BBCHP was a kind of installment of the ship’s purchase price and thus the owner had unjust enrichment, as opposed to payment of hire in simple BBC. The KSC denied such allegation. It regarded that the premium paid by the charterer as a simple charter hire. This case will play as a good precedent regarding insurable interest under the hull insurance.