로보 어드바이저를 활용한 보험판매와 법적 과제

Abstract

The environment surrounding the insurance industry is likely to become even more digital than nowadays. In particular, robo-advisors are expected to be used effectively in the insurance distribution channel. Although there is no legal definition for robo-advisors in the related insurance act in Korea. Traditional insurance distribution channels can use them as sales aids. In this case, the robo-advisor type is likely to be used as a product recommendation type and an information provision type. In light of the current technological development of robo-advisors, it is not possible to equate robo-advisors with AI insurance consultant. In this case, as examined in the examples of the United States, Australia, and Germany, if insurance intermediaries utilize robo-advisors to sell insurance products within existing legal systems, there will be problems in applying existing insurance law provisions. It should be noted that the same regulatory principles apply because there is no such rule. Considering that it is premature to establish a regulatory system for AI insurance distribution channels that make fully automated decisions without any human intervention, insurance sales channels utilizing robo-advisors should be considered as regulations for traditional distribution channels. The same regulations should be set. Considering this point, this paper defines robo-advisor as an algorithm-based ``automated online insurance product advisory device''. Also the paper proposed a plan to regulate this under the insurance industry regulation. On the other hand, this paper also considered measures to establish model standards for insurance distribution using robo-advisors and discipline them in the form of self-regulation. In addition, non-face-to-face sales and operator intervention are permitted with an algorithm-based system that evaluates customer opinions through algorithms and big data analysis using computer programs as an improvement plan for related acts and makes personal recommendations based on them. A proposal was made to prepare a provision to define it as an insurance product advisory device. In the case of this kind of regulation, in addition to fulfilling the duty of explanation imposed on insurance distribution channels under the existing legal system, the details of the duty of explanation to distribution channels that use robo-advisors should be determined in accordance with the principle of good faith. Therefor it is proposed in the paper to take measures for a plan to add within the scope of the obligation. Finally, regarding the judicial responsibility system, if liability arises due to incomplete distributions using robo-advisors, the person behind it will be held responsible for tortious acts associated with breach of obligations under the principle of good faith within the current legal system.