약관에 없는 사항에 대한 설명의무의 존부 - 대법원 2014. 10. 27. 선고 2012다22242판결 -


Duty to Explanation on Significant Matters beyond the Standard Insurance Terms - Supreme Court Decision 2012Da22242 Decides October 27, 2014 -


피인용수 : 0(자료제공 : 네이버학술정보)



In recent years, there has been considerable litigation involving life insurance sales. This rash of life insurance litigation has several root causes. A more serious problem is that variable or universal insurance can be confusing because those contract are financially sophisticated. Although much of this confusion could be eliminated if insureds would read their insurance terms or accompanying prospectuses, carefully review term illustrations, or question their solicitor about key aspects of terms, many do not. Their ultimate disappointment with their policies leads to anger and blame and thus to litigation against the insurers and solicitor whom they consider responsible for their alleged predicaments. In their zeal to make sales, some insurer provide customers with optimistic illustrations of policy performance that, while perhaps per missible under insurers’ compliance standards, unreasonably raise customers’ expectations and lead to litigation when those expectations are not met. This article provides a specific discussion of liability issues facing insurers, insurance solicitor in connection with the sale of life insurance, especially in case of breach of the duty to explanation. Duty to explain provided on the Commercial act art.638-3, Regulation of standardized contracts act art.3 and Insurance business act art.95-2. The Insurance business act differ from the Commercial act and Regulation of standardized contract act. Because the scope of explanation of former is material facts and important contents in insurance terms but the latter is not limited the scope of explanation to general terms. The Supreme Court Decision 2012Da22242 Decides October 27, 2014 ruled that the insurer have to explain the important contents of insurance contract whether the contents described in insurance terms or not. It is milestone decision and confirmed precedent case, 2010Da34159. This became a much enhanced policyholder protection.


Ⅰ. 사실관계 및 다툼
 Ⅱ. 소송의 경과
 Ⅲ. 평석
 Ⅳ. 맺는말


  • 김선정 Kim, Sun-Jeong. 동국대학교 법과대학 교수, 법학박사.


자료제공 : 네이버학술정보

    함께 이용한 논문

      ※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

      • 6,700원

      0개의 논문이 장바구니에 담겼습니다.