보험약관 설명의무 편입통제에 대한 연구

In comparatively, there is no legislative precedent in Korea that goes beyond granting reasonable recognizationbility to all contract transactions and requires an active act of explanation, and stipulates inclusion control in case of violation. Courts approaches matters that should be regulated by interpretation or content control in terms of binding force, and if an explanation is not provided for individual terms and conditions, the binding force is excluded and the contract is not incorporated, causing many problems. In standard form contract, the agreement between the contracting parties is not the individual inclusion of terms and conditions, but the agreement to incorporate all terms and conditions into the contract as a whole. In actual disputes, the ‘important contents’ that are the subject of the duty of explanation are mostly not the main benefits of the contract, but rather unimportant and difficult to predict, such as limitation of liability and procedure for exercising rights, and in reality, they correspond to ‘contents that cause unpredictable disadvantages.’ These reasons do not correspond to the contents that would have resulted in the conclusion of the contract or the consideration being different if the facts had been known at the time of the contract, but since they cause unpredictable disadvantages to the other party, it is systematically consistent to control fairness and the contents of the terms and conditions. Especially, in the case of corporate insurance, since insured has equal information power and negotiation power, there is less need for legal guardianship intervention, and since insurance contracts are concluded through individual negotiations, it is reasonable to exempt or ease the duty of explanation. It is common for corporate insurance to use internationally accepted terms and conditions, and in many cases, reinsurance is subscribed to domestic and foreign reinsurance companies. If the general and essential provisions of corporate insurance are excluded because they are not incorporated into contracts in Korea, it will go against the essence of insurance and the principle of equality of insured, and may bring about distrust in the Korean insurance industry.