해상보험에 있어서 사기적 보험금 청구- 英·中·韓 법리의 비교 -

Recently, the United Kingdom has begun to reform its outdated rules for marine insurance, the Marine Insurance Act 1906. Based on the relevant provisions of the new legislation, the Insurance Act 2015, the UK's revised marine insurance legislation is taking a new turn, and fraudulent claims in marine insurance are no exception. The purpose of this study is to examine the amendments to the Insurance Act in relation to fraudulent claims in marine insurance in the United Kingdom and to consider the differences from the existing law. The fraudulent claims regime under the UK Insurance Act is set out in section 12. The legislation resolves some of the most controversial issues regarding the liability of policyholders for fraudulent claims and the return of prepaid benefits or premiums. It is expected that more advanced theories on fraudulent claims in marine insurance will emerge in the future. The UK's legislation is likely to be of great help to Korean and Chinese marine insurance practitioners as well as to the legal system regarding marine insurance fraud. This paper starts from the theoretical background of insurance fraud and examines the meaning and characteristics of insurance fraud and the specific types of insurance fraud in marine insurance. It also compares and analyzes the relevant legal systems on fraudulent insurance claims in China and Korea, focusing on the UK, and draws implications for the Chinese and Korean legal systems by examining the section on fraudulent claims in the UK Insurance Act 2015. Unlike Korea, Chines Insurance Act has detailed regulations on fraudulent claims. Compared to the UK law, it is more detailed in that it even has regulations on overcharges. However, it can be criticized for not explicitly stipulating the insurer's right to terminate the insurance contract in case of overcharges. According to the UK's Revised Insurance Act, the insurer has an option in the event of a fraudulent claim by the insured, i.e., if the insurer gives notice of termination, the insurer can refuse to pay for damages incurred after the fraudulent act, but if the insurer does not choose to terminate the contract, the insurer will be obligated to pay for genuine damages. Considering the legislative direction of the English law, which emphasizes the insurer's right to choose regarding partially fraudulent insurance claims, it would be appropriate for the Chinese law to introduce the right to terminate the contract to the insurer as an explicit provision in order to establish reasonable treatment standards for overcharges. On the other hand, the Korean legal system regarding insurance fraud is in dire need of improvement because it does not have clear regulations compared to the UK and China. In terms of future legislation, we believe that it is necessary to discuss various issues such as the establishment of an explicit provision on the duty of utmost good faith, the establishment of regulations on the refusal of insurance or compensation for damages by the insurer in relation to insurance fraud, whether to allow the avoidence of the insurance contract when insurance fraud is proved, and the handling of overcharges that have some fraudulent elements. Given the international nature of marine insurance, it is essential to improve and maintain a legal system that meets international standards. In this regard, it is worth noting the institutional changes witnessed in the United Kingdom, which has set the standard for global marine insurance legislation since the 19th century.