재보험계약 원칙에 관한 비교법적 검토 및 연구 : PRICL과 미국법을 중심으로

Although it is not a public organization, the “2016 Principles of Reinsurance Contract Law” working group as a private organization has begun the work of establishing the principles of reinsurance. Reinsurance also has its origins in British marine insurance, but in England, reinsurance of marine insurance was prohibited in the 1700s, and as a result, it is difficult to find any significant rulings or legal principles on reinsurance for more than 150 years. On the other hand, reinsurance has been sold continuously in the United States, and the legal principles and principles on reinsurance seem to have developed more in American law. This article examines the important provisions of PRICL and the corresponding American legal principles in a situation where research and legal principles on reinsurance contracts are lacking, and studies the implications they provide us. It is necessary to keep an eye on the revision work of PRICL, which is not yet finished, and to study its comparative legal implications. Next, we will conclude. First, utmost good faith is a core principle of reinsurance. If there is no principle of utmost good, reinsurers should directly investigate and supervise the risks and insured accidents under the original insurance. Therefore, the cost will increase and the cost burden of the primary insurer will also increase. Second, the notification obligation of the reinsurance contract is different from the notification obligation of the general contract. The general notification obligation is changing to a passive obligation, but in reinsurance, which is part of corporate insurance, it remains in the form of an active obligation. However, both PRICL and US law are different from us in that the effect of violation of the notification obligation is a proportional reduction. Third, the distinction between fate and debt confirmation is common in comparative law. However, the handling method when there is no related regulation is different. PRICL accepts it as an implied contract condition, while US law does not. Considering that it emphasizes the notification obligation of the primary insurer and strengthens the investigation rights of the reinsurer, etc., the position of US law seems reasonable, but it is necessary to keep an eye on the comparative law trend. Fourth, the reinsurer has extensive investigation or inspection rights regarding insurance claims or related records under the primary insurance contract. In this case, the primary insurer is also considered to have the right to inspect related records that the reinsurer has confirmed and reviewed for the primary insurer. Fifth, with regard to the insurance payment procedure, the primary insurer's duty of notification and duty of processing in accordance with the utmost good faith are also established as principles. In this regard, when the reinsurer participates in the defense of the primary insurance, the primary insurer's duty of cooperation is emphasized.