Whether Warranty Clause with English Governing Law is subject to Korean Law regulating General Terms

항해구역 제한 담보특약이 붙은 선박보험에서 선박이 항해구역을 벗어난 지점에서 보험사고가 발생하여 피보험자가 보험금을 청구하자 보험자는 담보특약위반으로 보험금지급을 거부하자, 피보험자는 보험자는 국제사법 제25조 제4항에 의거하여 한국법하의 약관규제에관한법률의 설명의무를 위반하였고 따라서 보험자는 그 위반의 내용을 주장할 수 없다고 하였다. 서울고등법원은 준거법을 제외하고 외국적요소가 없는 경우에는 한국의 강행규정인 약관규제에 관한 법률을 적용할 수 있지만, 그렇지 않은 경우에는 적용할 수 없고 영국법을 따라야 한다고 판시하였다. “본 사건에서 선박은 한국에 기항하지 않고 사고도 공해에서 발생하였고 보험증권상 계약도 영어로 된 점에서 외국적 요소가 있다. 따라서 약관규제에 관한 법률이 적용되지 않고 영국법의 적용을 받아야 한다”고 서울 고등법원은 판시하였다. 본 판결은 영국준거법하에서 한국의 강행규정을 적용할 수 있는 기준을 제시한 점에 의의가 있다고 할 수 있다.

In a Seoul High Court case 2012.10.25. Docket No. 2012na 7207, a Korean shipowner made hull insurance contract with a Korean hull insurer with the trade area limit warranty and English governing law clause. The vessel sank outside of the limited area. Subsequently the insured claimed the insurance proceeds to the insurer. However, the insurer rejected the claim, arguing that the insurer breached the warranty and thus it was relieved from the liability to pay insurance proceeds in accordance with the 1906 MIA. On the other hand, the insured alleged that the insurer breached the duty to explain the material fact of the warranty to it pursuant to Korean Law regulating General Terms and thus the insurer is not allowed to invoke the effect of the breach of the warranty. The High Court rendered that if there was no foreign factor in the case except foreign governing clause, the Korean compulsory law such as the law regulating General Terms was applicable pursuant to Korean International Private Law Art. 25(4). The Court explained that in this case, the vessel as the subject matter of the insurance was navigating outside of the Korean waters, the accident occurred in the open sea which was not within Korean territory, the insurance policy was written in English. Consequently, the Court decided that the insurer was exempted from liability because the insured breached the warranty under the 1906 MIA in accordance with English governing law clause and thus insurer was exempted from the liability to pay insurance proceeds. This case is noteworthy in that the Court enumerated when the law regulating General Term was applicable in a marine insurance.