2021년 중요 보험판례와 그에 대한 분석

Abstract

Significant judgments were also made in relation to insurance in 2021. The Supreme Court suggested that if a medical opinion is submitted as evidence, it cannot be denied arbitrarily, and if the court wants to infer a causal relationship differently from such a medical opinion, it should make a careful judgment based on other medical and professional data. However, this position is difficult to accept. This is mainly because the attending physician makes the decision, because it is difficult to guarantee the objectivity of the attending physician’s opinion. Another thing that draws attention is whether the civil prescription of 10 years is applied as the prescription for the right to claim the refund of unfair profits when the insurance contract is invalid or whether the prescription of 5 years is applied by analogy with Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Insurance money is paid by the insurer through commercial activities. Therefore, it is correct to think that the five-year prescription applies to expeditious processing of commercial transactions to claim the return of the insurance contract because it is invalid. Claiming the refund of the insurance money paid when the insurance contract is invalid is seeking the return of the benefits themselves made on the basis of the contract, which is a commercial activity. This is because it should be regarded as a case in which there is a need to solve the problem as quickly as possible. The Supreme Court ruled that a 10-year civil prescription applies to the right to claim the return of unfair profits due to illegal dividends. It is difficult to see that there is a great need to quickly confirm the exercise of the right to request the return of unreasonable profits for the purpose of recovering the amount paid due to illegal dividends. Accordingly, it is reasonable as the attitude of the Supreme Court to consider that the right to claim the return of unfair profits due to illegal dividends is subject to Article 162 (1) of the Civil Act and is subject to the civil statute of limitations of 10 years. Another important issue is whether the insurer is allowed to preemptively file a non-obligation lawsuit in the event of a dispute with the insurer as to whether the policyholder has violated the obligation to notify. It can be affirmed that if the strong insurer indiscriminately files a debt non-existence suit, the weak consumer is inferior in intellectual or economic ability, so there is a problem. However, the people’s right to a trial is recognized as a basic right under the Constitution (Article 27 Paragraph 1 of the Korean Constitution). Therefore, it is not permissible to fundamentally prevent the insurer from taking a preemptive action for non-obligation. However, it should be considered permissible to stipulate that financial business operators, such as insurers, are not permitted to file lawsuits again by limiting certain amounts in the relevant special laws, such as the Financial Consumer Protection Act, by recognizing one-sided binding force on the results of dispute mediation. I think it is reasonable to set the standard of 10 million won as the standard. The role of precedents in the field of insurance law is very large. It is necessary to continuously monitor Supreme Court precedents in the future.