The legislation concerning the duty to explain insurance terms and conditions has undergone significant refinement through various stages: the enactment of the Act on Regulation of Terms and Conditions in 1986, the amendment of the Commercial Act in 1991, the global financial crisis in 2008, the amendment of the Insurance Business Act in 2010, and the enactment of the Financial Consumer Protection Act in 2020. Currently, violations of the duty to explain are subject to multiple regulatory layers, including the control of incorporation under the Act on Regulation of Terms and Conditions, contract termination, indemnification for damages, administrative sanctions under the Financial Consumer Protection Act, and contract cancellation under the Commercial Act. The duty to explain aims to resolve information asymmetry and ensure the substantial autonomy and initiative of consumers in contract formation. However, detailed discussions are required regarding its rationale and requirements. The rationale for the duty to explain has been examined from the perspectives of contract law, tort law, and insurance law. Specific requirements may include information requirements (importance and asymmetry of information), obligor requirements (expertise and bargaining power of the obligor), and relational requirements (conflicts of interest and potential for abuse). These could serve as preliminary standards in legislative policy-making and judicial decisions related to the duty to explain. The control of incorporation under the Act on Regulation of Terms and Conditions is one of the most stringent measures for regulating violations of the duty to explain. However, when applied to statutory obligations, such as the duty of disclosure included in the terms and conditions, it results in issues where the applicability of statutory obligations differs based on whether they were explained. For standard terms in mandatory insurance like auto insurance, it is inequitable for the content to vary among customers based on whether explanations were given. Furthermore, excluding only disadvantageous clauses from the contract by applying incorporation control and thereby providing benefits that customers could not have obtained at the time of contract formation is also unfair. These problems arise from the application of incorporation control to violations of the duty to explain. Therefore, it is necessary to consider excluding or limiting the scope of incorporation control for violations of the duty to explain insurance terms. Discussions on the duty to explain have traditionally focused on consumer protection. Moving forward, there needs to be comprehensive consideration of consumer protection, the rationality of regulation, the principles of insurance, and equity in discussions on policy improvement.