2024년 주요 보험 판례에 대한 연구

Insurance precedents reflect the times. However, many insurance decisions were made in 2024 as well. In the 2024 precedents, there were many precedents on actual loss insurance and its legal nature as non-life insurance, subrogation of the insurer, and whether it is a state where free decision-making is impossible. In addition, issues such as the suspension of the medical license of one of the joint founders of a medical institution and the qualification of the medical aid institution, the insurance company's reserve fund for the non-occurrence of the reason for insurance payment in case of suicide after 2 years, the insured accident caused by the act of the approved insured and the subrogation of the insurer, and the statute of limitations for the claim for compensation for the acquisition of the insurer's subrogation by one of the joint tortfeasors were also raised. Actual loss insurance is the insurance company taking over the portion that the insured actually bears according to the terms of the contract. Therefore, the portion that is refunded from the pharmaceutical company or returned by the government according to the principle of the upper limit of deductible is not the portion that the insured actually bears, so it is not something that the insurer should bear. However, since there is a difference between the time when the government refunds according to the upper limit of deductible and the time of treatment, in order to fill the gap, the insurer should first bear the burden and the process of the insurer settling with the government should be changed to fill the gap in the insured's coverage. The duty to notify and the duty to inform have become issues. The duty to notify has a limitation period of 1 month from the day the insurer becomes aware of the violation and 3 years from the date of conclusion of the contract. In a situation where the duty to notify of important matters has been violated, the limitation period for the duty to notify has expired, and even after the conclusion of the contract, the situation of high risk persists, and the issue has become whether the insurer can cancel the contract by raising the issue of the duty to notify of increased risk. However, the duty to notify of increased risk change should be considered to be an issue only in cases where the risk increases after the conclusion of the insurance contract. According to previous Supreme Court precedents, the remainder of the total compensation claim equivalent to retirement pension, after deducting survivor pensions, etc., is considered to be jointly inherited according to the provisions of the Civil Act. However, if this is done, the inheritance portion of the remaining heirs who do not receive survivor pensions will be reduced. In addition, there is an unfair problem in the form of inheritance after deduction that private insurers benefit from the social insurance system. In such a situation, in 2024, the Supreme Court reasonably changed the previous precedent to the method of inheritance after deduction through a full bench. In the future, the topics of insurance law will appear in various ways. The insurance law doctrine should also change to properly reflect the changes in our society. The case law doctrine should perform a flexible function in the direction of adapting to the changes of the times while complying with the basics of insurance. In the process, changes in foreign insurance laws and changes in case law should be considered at the same time, and for that purpose, comparative law research should be actively conducted.