변액보험이란 계약자가 납입한 보험료의 일부를 펀드로 조성하여 주식, 국채, 공채 등 수익성과 위험성이 높은 유가증권에 투자하여 그 운용실적에 따라 계약자에게 투자수익을 배분하는 전형적인 고위험 고수익 상품이다. 보험금액, 해지환급금이 변동하게 되며 자산운용 성과에 따라 고수익도 가능하지만 원금손실도 발생할 수 있고 예금자보호법의 보호도 받지 못한다. 따라서 변액보험 가입자는 보험상품에 대한 충분한 설명을 듣고 자신에게 적합한 상품을 가입해야만 한다. 자본시장법 제46조와 제47조에서는 투자자 보호를 위하여 적합성의 원칙과 설명의무를 명시하고 있다. 금융투자업자는 일반투자자에게 투자권유를 하기 전에 면담·질문 등을 통하여 투자목적·재산상황 및 투자경험 등의 정보를 파악하고 투자자에게 적합한 투자권유를 하여야 한다. 투자권유를 하는 경우에는 금융투자상품의 내용, 투자에 따르는 위험 등을 이해할 수 있도록 설명하여야 한다. 본 사례에서 친척이나 친구, 아는 사람 등을 통해 마지못해 보험을 들어주는 일반적인 우리들의 모습을 보게 되는데 보험설계사는 원고에게 적합한 보험상품을 권하면서 충분하게 설명하지 않았고 설계사의 말만 믿고 가입한 계약자는 보험을 해약하면서 많은 손실을 입고 소송을 제기하자 원고에게 손실액을 전액 배상하라는 최초의 판결이 내려졌다. 본 논문에서는 변액보험에 대한 설명의무와 적합성의 원칙에 대해 기존 논의와 최신동향을 정리해보고 대상판결에 대한 검토와 더불어 변액보험에 있어서 설명의무와 적합성원칙에 대한 개선점과 소비자 보호방안을 제시해보고자 한다.

This paper is to research and analyze a important case sentenced by the Korean high court. In korea, The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act has enacted suitability principle and the duty to explain. There are various forms of life insurance products. Although features and benefits may vary, the following is a general description of typical characteristics of various types of life insurance policies. Universal life insurance can also provide coverage for the life of the insured while at the same time providing flexibility in premium payments and in insurance coverage. The cost of insurance protection and, in some cases, other costs are deducted from the cash or policy account value. Variable life insurance, a variation of whole life insurance, offers a fixed premium schedule and a minimum death benefit. But it differs from traditional whole life insurance in that cash values are invested in portfolios of securities in an account separate from the general assets of the insurance company. A policyholder has discretion in choosing the mix of investments the policy offers. The insurance company does not guarantee investment returns. Variable universal life insurance combines features of universal life insurance and variable life insurance. In Korea, The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act Article 46, 47, Each financial investment business entity shall confirm whether an investor is an ordinary investor or a professional investor. Each financial investment business entity shall obtain information about the investment purpose, status of property, experience in investment, etc. of an ordinary investor through interviews, inquiries, etc. before recommending him/her to make an investment, and shall require the ordinary investor to make a signature (including a digital signature under subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Digital Signature Act; hereinafter the same shall apply), print his/her name and affix his/her seal, record conversations, or have a confirmation in any other manner, and keep and maintain the confirmation safely, and shall furnish the investor with the confirmed information without delay. No financial investment business entity shall recommend an ordinary investor to make an investment, if the investment is deemed unsuitable for the investor in light of the investment purpose, status of property, experience in investment, etc. of the investor. A financial investment business entity shall, whenever it makes an investment recommendation to an ordinary investor, explain the details of the financial investment instrument, the risks contingent upon the investment, and other matters specified by Presidential Decree with such sufficiency as to allow the ordinary investor to understand them. A financial investment business entity shall obtain a confirmation from each ordinary investor, in one or more manners, such as providing a signature, printing his/her name and affixing his/her seal, or any other manner prescribed by Presidential Decree. No financial investment business entity shall provide false or distorted information while explaining material facts that may produce a significant impact on the investor’s reasonable judgment or the value of the relevant financial investment instrument or omit an explanation of any of the material facts. The suitability principle consists of know your customer rule and a suitable recommendation for a specific investor. A financial investment business entity must explain the details of the financial investment instrument, the risks contingent upon the investment. The policy conditions has to be written plain and easy expression for better understanding by ordinary investors. This paper suggests that the duty to explain and the suitability principle of variable insurance must be interpreted by consumer protection. I says that a breach of the duty to explain and the suitability principle may be in violation of torts law. A financial investment business entity shall be liable for the damages inflicted upon ordinary investors by its violation of the suitability principle under tort law. In this paper, I studied the duty to explain and the suitability principle of variable insurance from varies angles and researched some points at issues of insurance law.

the suitability principle, investment recommendations,a duty to explain, the violation of the suitability principle, variable insurance, universal life insurance, consumer protection