CHOSUN

단체보험계약의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구

Metadata Downloads
Author(s)
임승규
Issued Date
2015
Abstract
ABSTRACT
A study on the problems and improvements
of group insurance contract

Im, Seung-gyu
Advisor : Prof., Kim jae-hyoung, Ph. D.
Department of Law
Graduate School of Chosun University

The provisions of Commercial Code related to a group insurance contract prior to the amendment of the Commercial Code does not have provisions on the concept of the group insurance and requirements for the establishment or effect, but have provisions considering the practical convenience of the group insurance, which issues an insurance policy only for the purpose and policyholder, exempting the written consent of the insured, required by the other's life insurance contract.
As a result, in the academia and the legal circle, there have been various discussions on group insurance contract, and the issues in the discussions can be said broadly in two ways: First, whether the provision of exempting other's written consent in the other's death insurance contract is appropriate. Second, whether an organization, which is a policyholder, can designate itself as a beneficiary of an insurance and receive the insurance money, and in other words, who should be considered the final attributed subject of the group insurance.
Regarding the first issue, Constitutional Court Daejeon High Court decided its constitutionality by a majority opinion for a case of request to rule on its constitutionality; Regarding the second issue, in the revised Commercial Code on March 12, 2015 established the following article, “When a policyholder designates the insured or one who is not its inheritor as an insurance beneficiary, unless articles of association implicitly specify, a written consent of the insured should be received.”
However, although the Commercial Code has been revised, regarding the group insurance contract, controversy still remains due to the ambiguity of legal provisions. First, with the amendment of the Commercial Code, what the contents of the articles of association are and whether the insured, the members of the group, knows the contents became very important, but it is very difficult for employees, the members of the group to know the contents of the articles of association in reality, and even if they know the contents, it is not easy for them to refuse to agree. Second, if there are no explicit contents about the designation of an insurance beneficiary in the articles of association, themselves, the insurance contract itself becomes nullified when the policyholder is designated as an insurance beneficiary, and an insurance accident cannot be covered. Third, since there is no restriction of the range of the use of a group insurance, there is a problem that it is very likely that a dispute over the reception of the group insurance may continue to occur.
Regarding this, in entering into a group insurance contract, the insurer should be obliged to explain and notify the conclusion and the contents of the contract to the insured as well as the policyholder, and since a group insurance contract, by nature, aims at the promotion of corporate welfare, the purpose of the use of the group insurance should be limited to employees, the members of the group and the bereaved.
In addition to these problems, since the group insurance contract allows the policyholder to designate itself without a written consent of the insured if it is specifically set in the articles of association without distinguishing disasters at work from accidents other than incidents at work, regarding the insurance accident, so there are incessant disputes over the reception of the group insurance, if any incidence other than a disaster at work occurs. Also, if the premium of group insurance contract is jointly borne by a group and the members of the group, there is no specific applicable provision related to the rights of the members of the group concerning the reception and use of the insurance, so it would be very vulnerable for the protection of the rights of the members of the group. Therefore, the above two issues should be improved legislatively.
Alternative Title
A study on the problems and improvements of group insurance contract
Alternative Author(s)
Im, Seung Gyu
Affiliation
조선대학교 대학원 법학과
Department
일반대학원 법학과
Advisor
김재형
Awarded Date
2015-08
Table Of Contents
목 차

Abstract i

제1장 연구의 목적 및 연구방법 1
제1절 연구의 목적 1
제2절 연구 방법 2

제2장 단체보험의 기본이론 4
제1절 단체보험의 의의 4
1. 단체보험의 개념 및 법적 성질 4
가. 단체보험의 개념 4
나. 단체보험의 법적 성질 5
2. 단체보험의 특성 및 한계점 6
가. 단체보험의 특성 6
나. 단체보험의 한계점 8
3. 단체보험의 연혁 및 존재 이유 9
가. 단체보험의 연혁 9
나. 단체보험의 존재 이유 11
제2절 단체보험계약의 관계자 12
1. 보험자 12
가. 보험약관의 교부·설명의무 12
나. 보험증권의 교부의무 13
다. 보험금 지급책임 14
2. 보험계약자 15
가. 단체의 의미 15
나. 단체의 법적 지위 15
1) 고지의무 16
2) 보험료 지급의무 16
3) 관리의무 17
3. 피보험자 17
가. 피보험자의 적격여부 17
나. 피보험자의 고지의무 18
4. 보험수익자 19
제3절 각국의 입법례 개관 21
1. 미국의 경우 21
2. 일본의 경우 23
3. 독일의 경우 26

제3장 상법 개정과 관련한 단체보험계약의 문제 28
제1절 피보험자의 서면동의 면제 규정 28
1. 논의의 쟁점 28
2. 헌법재판소의 위헌제청신청에 대한 판단 29
가. 위헌제청신청사건의 개요 29
나. 위헌제청신청이유 29
다. 헌법재판소의 합헌 결정 31
제2절 보험금의 최종적인 귀속주체와 관련한 문제 32
1. 논의의 쟁점 32
2. 학설의 대립 32
3. 개별적인 구체적 사례 33
가. 사건의 개요 33
나. 대법원 판결의 요지 34
다. 소결 34
제3절 개정 상법에 대한 검토 36
1. 상법 개정의 필요성 및 개정 상법의 내용과 취지 36
가. 상법 개정의 필요성 36
나. 개정 상법의 내용과 취지 36
2. 개정 상법에 대한 검토 37
가. 문제 제기 37
나. 규약의 의미 38
다. 단체규약의 불합리성 40
라. 단체보험금의 사용범위 제한 여부 41
3. 개선 방안 42
가. 보험자의 피보험자에 대한 설명통지의무 신설 42
나. 보험업법 감독규정 강화 44
다. 단체보험금의 용도제한 45

제4장 단체보험계약의 또 다른 문제들 47
제1절 업무상 재해 이외의 사고에 대한 검토 47
1. 문제 제기 47
2. 업무상 재해 이외의 사고에 대한 문제 48
가. 보험사고의 의의 및 요건 48
나. 보험사고의 동질성 여부 49
다. 업무상 재해 이외의 사고에 대한 단체보험금 귀속 문제 49
3. 개선 방안 51
제2절 분담형 단체보험계약에 대한 검토 53
1. 분담형 단체보험계약의 문제 53
2. 개선 방안 54

제5장 결 론 55
Degree
Master
Publisher
조선대학교
Citation
임승규. (2015). 단체보험계약의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구.
Type
Dissertation
URI
https://oak.chosun.ac.kr/handle/2020.oak/12501
http://chosun.dcollection.net/common/orgView/200000265004
Appears in Collections:
General Graduate School > 3. Theses(Master)
Authorize & License
  • AuthorizeOpen
  • Embargo2015-08-25
Files in This Item:

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.