패키지보험 중 재산종합위험담보의 피보험이익과 법적 쟁점에 관한 연구 -서울중앙지법 2015가합524591 및 서울고법 2017나2002821 판결을 대상으로-

Parts 1 and 2 of the package insurance contract have the nature of a property insurance and of course, a person who owns an insured object is the insured for the corresponding property insurance. However, insurable interest of a property insurance is not limited to ownership interests. Judicial precedents of Korea have taken the same interpretation. Due to the minor works clauses, parts 1 and 2 of the package insurance are also having the nature of a constructing insurance, which considers the liabilities of the contractor, conducting a small-scale construction, as the insurable interests. Therefore, if a construction comes under a category of small-scale constructions in the minor works clauses, it would be proper to interpret it as that the contractor could be approved as the insured since the contractor would have the insurable interests for the liabilities he would bear. Only when the construction company is approved as the insured for parts 1 and 2 of the package insurance, the existence of multiple insured clauses becomes significant. If only the owner is the insured as claimed by insurance companies, the policy holder and the insurer have no reason to reach an additional agreement to settle these multiple insured clauses. Due to the minor works clauses, the contractor could be approved as the insured for parts 1 and 2 of the package insurance and for this reason, multiple insured clauses and the subrogation waver clauses could be applied. In conclusion, it should be interpreted that the insurer cannot exercise subrogation against the construction company, which is the insured.