보험설계사의 설명의무 위반으로 인한 손해의 산정에 관한 고찰 대법원 2024. 12. 12. 선고 2022다200317, 200324 판결을 중심으로 -

The Supreme Court held that damages equivalent to the full amount of the insurance proceeds should be awarded—including not only the proceeds the policyholder failed to receive but also those that should have been paid to other beneficiaries—where an insurance agent failed to adequately fulfill the duty of explanation at the time of concluding a life insurance contract, thereby preventing the policyholder and the insured from submitting the documents necessary for payment. This study concurs with the soundness of the subject ruling in awarding the full amount of the insurance proceeds in a situation where only the counterclaimant, who held the dual status of both policyholder and beneficiary, sought damages. However, the subject ruling does not sufficiently present a persuasive legal rationale as to the legal grounds on which the counterclaimant—an insurance policyholder asserting a tort based on a breach of the duty of explanation—may claim, beyond their own share, the portions attributable to other beneficiaries. This study proceeds on the premise that additional legal grounds are required in constructing a detailed legal framework for this purpose, and develops its analysis around this central position. To frame the discussion, this study first examines the forms of breach of an insurance agent’s duty of explanation, the availability of damages depending on the insurance beneficiary’s cause of action, and the differences in legal effects arising from the legal nature of claims for damages. Furthermore, by comparing and analyzing cases involving breaches of the duty of explanation by physicians and financial investment professionals who face similar legal issues, this study seeks to explore a more rational and clearer legal framework for assessing damages applicable to cases involving breaches of an insurance agent’s duty of explanation.