현행 상법상의 團體保險規定인 제735조의 3은 團體保險金의 귀속주체를 밝히고 있지 않다. 따라서 당해 조문을 문리적으로 해석한다면, 保險契約者인 기업이 保險受益者로 해석될 수 없는 것은 아니다. 그러나 본고에서 지적한 바와 같은 團體保險의 연혁과 법적 구조, 단체보험의 기능 그리고 현행법의 해석론상의 문제점들을 고려할 때 이러한 해석은 團體保險의 본질을 호도할 우려가 크다. 또한 현행 상법이 團體保險의 본질과 가입에 대한 실질적인 상황을 고려하지 않고 실무상의 가입절차의 편의만을 수용하여, 타인의 생명보험에서 요구되는 書面同意를 規約에 의하여 체결되는 團體保險契約의 경우에는 면제한다는 취지만을 밝히고 있는 것은, 국민들의 복지향상을 위하여 국가보장의 부족분을 보충하는 역할을 하는 團體保險에 대한 최소한의 입법적 배려조차 등한시하였다고 볼 수 밖에 없다. 團體保險은 그 출발부터 종업원의 복리후생과 유족의 생활보호를 위한 보험이었다. 그러나 상법 제735조의 3을 신설하면서 團體保險契約의 체결시 개별적 서면동의에 따르는 절차나 비용의 문제와 같은 절차적 혹은 경제적 이유를 인간의 존엄성 내지 인격보다 우선시하고, 또한 개인보험과 같은 도덕적 위험이 없을 것이라는 단순한 사고로부터 동의절차를 면제하는 오류를 범하고 있다. 따라서 입법론으로는 團體保險契約은 他人의 生命保險인 동시에 他人을 위한 生命保險이라는 점을 규정하고, 保險契約者인 기업을 保險受益者로 지정하지 못하도록 하며, 계약의 체결시에도 단체의 규약에 의한 단체적 동의가 아닌 구체적이고 개별적인 서면동의를 요구하는 개정작업이 시급하다고 본다. 이에도 불구하고 현재 보험법에 대한 개정작업 중인 보험법개정위원회에서도 단체보험규정에 대한 전면적인 개정이 아니라, 기업을 보험수익자로 하는 단체보험에 있어서는 피보험자의 서면동의가 요구된다는 의견만이 개진된 상태이어서 필자로서는 만족스러운 상황이 아니다. 보다 진지한 개정작업을 기대하는 바이다.

The Legal effect of Group Insurance Contract that the enterprise is the beneficiary of the amount insured Kim, Moon-Jae* Group life insurance is that form of life insurance covering all or a part of employees with or without medical examination, written under a policy issued to the employer, the premium on which is to be paid by the employer or by the employer and employees jointly. And the amounts insured that is based upon some plan which will preclude individual selection, is the fund for the benefit of persons other than the employer. Therefore the group insurance contract has originally a legal nature that is the life insurance for the benefit of a third party. But Supreme Court of Korea judged that the group insurance contract could be concluded for the insurance policyholder. Such judgement bases upon the article 735-3 of Korean Commercial Code, because that article doesn't prescribed who is the beneficiary of the amount insured, and prescribed exclusion of the written consent of the insured in the case that group insurance contract is concluded by the collective labour agreement. As a result, the employer designates his ownself as the beneficiary of the amount insured, and the employee has not a right about the amount. But this interpretation has a various problems. Therefore, this paper has a purpose to propose that article 735-3 must be amended to the way that employees are the beneficiary of the amount insured in the group insurance contract.

The Legal effect of Group Insurance Contract that the enterprise is the beneficiary of the amount insured Kim, Moon-Jae* Group life insurance is that form of life insurance covering all or a part of employees with or without medical examination, written under a policy issued to the employer, the premium on which is to be paid by the employer or by the employer and employees jointly. And the amounts insured that is based upon some plan which will preclude individual selection, is the fund for the benefit of persons other than the employer. Therefore the group insurance contract has originally a legal nature that is the life insurance for the benefit of a third party. But Supreme Court of Korea judged that the group insurance contract could be concluded for the insurance policyholder. Such judgement bases upon the article 735-3 of Korean Commercial Code, because that article doesn't prescribed who is the beneficiary of the amount insured, and prescribed exclusion of the written consent of the insured in the case that group insurance contract is concluded by the collective labour agreement. As a result, the employer designates his ownself as the beneficiary of the amount insured, and the employee has not a right about the amount. But this interpretation has a various problems. Therefore, this paper has a purpose to propose that article 735-3 must be amended to the way that employees are the beneficiary of the amount insured in the group insurance contract.

group insurance contract, the beneficiary of the amount insured, exclusion of the written consent, collective labour agreement