약관 설명의무의 면제사유에 관한 연구 －대법원 2024. 4. 16. 선고 2023다293620 판결을 중심으로－

This study systematically analyzes the legal structure and practical limitations of two exemption grounds for the duty to explain under Article 3(3) of the Korean Act on the Regulation of Standardized Contracts (ARSC): “cases where the customer could reasonably have expected the term” and “cases where the term merely repeats statutory provisions.” The duty to explain serves as a core mechanism to address information asymmetry between business operators and customers, enabling customers to make rational decisions based on sufficient understanding. Its importance is particularly pronounced in the context of insurance contracts, which are characterized by their standardized nature and technical complexity. However, the current statutory framework lacks clear criteria defining the scope of the duty and its exemptions, leaving judicial interpretation to play a central role in its practical operation. First, the “reasonably expected” exemption concerns whether the customer could have substantially recognized the existence and content of the contractual clause. The mere fact that a term is general or customary in trade does not automatically imply that the customer could have expected it; rather, the assessment should focus on the customer’s actual cognitive capacity. The Supreme Court’s decision (the case under study) denied the exemption on the ground that the policyholder could not have predicted the specific scope of the duty of disclosure based solely on the insurer’s questionnaire, thereby emphasizing the customer’s substantive understanding and advancing a progressive interpretation of the explanatory duty. Second, “repetition of statutory provisions” constitutes an independent ground for exemption, as clauses that merely repeat statutory language are already binding under law and do not require separate explanation. However, clauses that include individualized or specific matters beyond such repetition acquire contractual significance and thus fall within the scope of the duty to explain. Furthermore, when statutory provisions and individualized matters are combined in a single clause, even the statutory portion must be explained, as it plays a supplementary role in ensuring the customer’s comprehension. The Supreme Court’s decision refined the previously ambiguous boundary between the individualization standard and the foreseeability standard by applying them sequentially. It also reaffirmed that the substantive purpose of the explanatory duty lies in securing the customer’s actual understanding, transforming it from a mere informational obligation into an instrument of genuine customer protection. In conclusion, this study establishes a systematic framework for assessing the grounds for exemption from the duty to explain and argues that future jurisprudence should shift from a formalistic focus on explanation toward a substantive understanding-based approach. The Supreme Court’s decision represents a balanced expansion of the explanatory duty and a deepening of the customer protection principle in Korean contract law.