다른 보험계약의 존재에 대한 고지의부 및 통지의무 -대판 2000.1.11, 99다33311을 중심으로-
분야
사회과학 > 법학
저자
한기정 ( Ki Jeong Han )
발행기관
이화여자대학교 법학연구소
간행물정보
법학논집 2003년, 제8권 제1호, 173~190페이지(총18페이지)
파일형식
2b600371.pdf [무료 PDF 뷰어 다운로드]
  • ※ 본 자료는 참고용 논문으로 수정 및 텍스트 복사가 되지 않습니다.
  • 구매가격
    5,800원
    적립금
    174원 (구매자료 3% 적립)
    이메일 발송  스크랩 하기
    자료 다운로드  네이버 로그인
    영문초록
    This article deals with the insurer can revoke the insurance contract. The Supreme Court Decision 2000.1.11, 99na33311 concerns a case where even though the insurer asked on the insurance application form a specific question whether the applicant had had insurance policies, the latter with lots of other policies, the latter with lots of other policies did not answer it. The Supreme Court held in favour of the applicant on the ground that the insurer failed to prove that he was fraudulent or grossly negligent. This article argues: since the Korean Commercial Code sec. 651-2 provides that the fact about which a specific question is put is presumed as material, the applicant, the applicant was deemed to know the materiality of the existence of other insurance; the applicant with so many policies cannot be heard to assert his ignorance of other insurances. Second, the insurance contracts at issue had an express term that when the insured makes new contracts he notify the insurer of the fact. Despite this the insured failed to make such an notice. The Supreme Court held that only the insured who made a fraudulent or grossly negligent non-notification is subject to insured was neither fraudulent nor grossly negligent. The suggested reason was that the duty of notification must be treated equally with the duty of disclosure. However, this article argues that it seems groundless.
    사업자등록번호 220-87-87785 대표.신현웅 주소.서울시 서초구 방배로10길 18, 402호 대표전화.070-8809-9397
    개인정보책임자.박정아 통신판매업신고번호 제2017-서울서초-1765호 이메일 help@reportshop.co.kr
    copyright (c) 2009 happynlife. steel All reserved.