소멸시효 완성된 보험금 지급조치 요구 행정작용에 관한 처분성 및 위법성 검토 - 서울행정법원 2015. 11. 13. 판결 2014구합71993 평석을 중심으로 -

Amid prolonged controversy and conflict over whether to pay the so-called ‘suicide insurance’, the Supreme Court judged on May 12, 2016 that the insurance company was responsible for paying the suicide insurance. However, extinctive prescription has run out for more than 80 percent of contracts related to suicide insurance that insurance companies have to pay. Nevertheless, the decisive reason for most insurance companies to pay insurance benefits the with completed extinctive prescription is that the Seoul Administrative Court case (Nov. 13. 2015) recognized the administrative disposition, and concluded that there was no illegality prior to the Supreme Court’s civil case (May 12, 2016). The Seoul Administrative Court case was considered to be effectively granted the general effects of administrative action, such as the binding power of the administrative act, subsist authority, and executive power, and has played a major role in most insurance companies’ payment of insurance benefits with the completed extinctive prescription. With this background, this paper examines two main controversial issues in the Seoul Administrative Court case: ① whether the Financial Supervisory Service’s request for the payment of insurance benefits to life insurance companies is an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act ② whether Financial Supervisory Service's request for action that could conflict with the civil justice system constitutes illegal administrative action. Furthermore, this paper identifies the legal nature of the Financial Supervisory Service’s request for action, and explores the legal protection issues caused by the insurance company refusing to pay insurance benefits for their consumers, etc.