금융환경의 변화에 부응하여 2001년부터 판매되기 시작한 변액보험은 계약자의 자기책임의 원칙이 적용되는 상품이다. 즉, 변액보험은 보험계약자가 납입한 보험료의 전부 또는 일부를 특별계정에 산입하여, 변액보험자가 이것을 주로 주식 등의 유가증권에 투자하여 얻은 수익을 갖고 보험사고가 일어난 경우 보험계약자 등에게 보험금으로 지급하는 형태의 보험을 말한다. 이와 같이 변액보험은 자산운용성과에 따라 보험금이 변동하는 상품이므로, 계약자가 불측의 손해를 볼 위험이 있기 때문에, 변액보험계약자를 보호하기 위한 법적 대책이 필요하다. 그러나 투자위험이 따르는 변액보험 계약관계에서 보험계약자를 보호하기 위한 우리나라의 법률규정은 아직 미흡하다고 생각한다. 따라서 이 논문에서는 오래 전부터 변액보험을 판매해 온 외국의 법규와 판례를 비교∙분석하여, 우리 법률상 변액보험계약자를 보호하기 위한 방안을 모색하고자 한다. 특히 우리 법제의 문제점으로 첫째, 변액보험자의 설명의무 및 적합성 원칙의 문제, 둘째, 자산운용에 있어서 변액보험자의 주의의무 문제, 셋째, 은행 등이 변액보험상품을 판매하는 경우의 책임 문제에 대해 차례로 살펴보면서, 이에 대한 개선 방안을 제시하고자 한다.

Variable insurance has been offered on the domestic market since 2001 to meet the changing needs of financial environments, and is a financial product to which the principle of self-liability for the policy holder applies. In other words, variable insurance refers to insurance wherein the whole or portion of the premium paid by the policy holder is included in the special account. Underwriters for variable insurance invest the foregoing premium mainly in stocks or marketable securities, and pay out applicable proceeds to the insured out of the revenues derived from the foregoing investment. Since variable insurance is a product wherein the insurance proceeds vary with the outcome of asset operation, the policy holder runs the risk of incurring unforeseen loss, and therefore, some legal countermeasures are required to protect the policy holder of variable insurance. It seems, however, that the laws and regulations designed to protect the variable insurance policy holder in a contractual relationship have not yet been properly established in our country. Given such circumstances, I would like to attempt to compare and analyze the laws, regulations, and judicial precedents of those countries where variable insurances have long been sold, and search for countermeasures which will protect the policy holders of variable insurance in our country. Especially in respect to the problems of our legal system - firstly, the policy holder's obligation for declaration and principles of suitability, secondly, the liability for due diligence in asset management, and thirdly, the issue of bank liability in the event a bank is involved in asset management - I would like to present various approaches to improving these issues.

Variable insurance has been offered on the domestic market since 2001 to meet the changing needs of financial environments, and is a financial product to which the principle of self-liability for the policy holder applies. In other words, variable insurance refers to insurance wherein the whole or portion of the premium paid by the policy holder is included in the special account. Underwriters for variable insurance invest the foregoing premium mainly in stocks or marketable securities, and pay out applicable proceeds to the insured out of the revenues derived from the foregoing investment. Since variable insurance is a product wherein the insurance proceeds vary with the outcome of asset operation, the policy holder runs the risk of incurring unforeseen loss, and therefore, some legal countermeasures are required to protect the policy holder of variable insurance. It seems, however, that the laws and regulations designed to protect the variable insurance policy holder in a contractual relationship have not yet been properly established in our country. Given such circumstances, I would like to attempt to compare and analyze the laws, regulations, and judicial precedents of those countries where variable insurances have long been sold, and search for countermeasures which will protect the policy holders of variable insurance in our country. Especially in respect to the problems of our legal system - firstly, the policy holder's obligation for declaration and principles of suitability, secondly, the liability for due diligence in asset management, and thirdly, the issue of bank liability in the event a bank is involved in asset management - I would like to present various approaches to improving these issues.

variable life insurance, explanation obligation, trustee liability, self-liability principle, suitability doctrine, special account