금융소비자보호법과 대형GA에 대한 손해배상 책임 부여 가능성 연구

As a merchant, the insurer has a number of commercial users and assistants for its business. Recently, there have been many changes, such as the expansion of insurance solicitation using the Internet network and the emergence of AI insurance solicitors. The liability of the insurer for their actions is handled by the Financial Consumer Protection Act, the Commercial Act, and the Civil Act. It has been several months since the Financial Consumer Protection Act came into effect. The liability relationship between insurance companies and insurance sellers is being discussed as an important topic. However, the Financial Consumer Protection Act follows Article 102 of the old Insurance Business Act almost as it is, maintaining the structure in which the insurance company is held responsible even if an insurance solicitor belonging to a large GA makes a mistake. However, in the case of large GAs, the scale is very large, such as having more than 10,000 planners, and there are cases where they have equal or greater power than insurance companies. In such a situation, it is problematic to maintain a structure in which only insurance companies are traditionally responsible. Recently, the argument for acknowledging the direct responsibility of large insurance agencies is gaining more and more persuasive power. In the case of large corporate insurance agencies with more than a certain number of insurance solicitors, it is necessary to create a new regulation in the Financial Consumer Protection Act that allows them to take direct responsibility, just like the current insurance company. In addition, the obligation to purchase liability insurance should be made in a way that supplements the business deposit of the existing insurance agency. Under Article 87 (3) and (4) of the Insurance Business Act, the Financial Services Commission may have insurance agencies deposit business subsidies. Accordingly, the operating deposit of the insurance agency shall be set within the limit of 100 million won (300 million won in the case of a corporate insurance agency), and the insurance company and the agent shall be consulted and determined, provided that the financial institution insurance agency shall be exempted from the duty of depositing the operating deposit; Yes (Article 33 Paragraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Business Act). In this regard, in the case of large corporate insurance agencies over a certain size, it is necessary to make it mandatory to purchase liability insurance of a considerable amount or more. In our case, the insurance solicitation environment is rapidly changing, with the proliferation of large corporate insurance agencies. And with the enforcement of the Financial Consumer Protection Act, the six sales principles are also applied to the sale of insurance products. However, the legal system for liability for damages has not changed significantly due to the enforcement of the Financial Consumer Protection Act. Even if an insurance solicitor belonging to a large corporate agency makes a mistake, the insurer bears the responsibility as a direct seller. The corporate agent, the seller, is also responsible, and the insurer can exercise the right to indemnity against the corporate agent if the insurer has paid the damages, but in reality, it is difficult for the insurer to exercise the right to indemnity. However, in the case of large corporate agency, the number of designers has grown significantly, such as more than 10,000, and I believe that it is necessary to impose primary responsibility on the corporate agency over a certain size. However, it is necessary to take measures to force corporate agents to subscribe to liability insurance to ensure that they secure indemnity and to submit a certificate of subscription.