관광업에 관련된 여행자보험 연구- 여행자보험계약상 보험사고에 관한 분쟁사례 연구: 수원지법 2010.4.29, 2009가합 19638, 19645 판결과 관련하여 -

초록

The tourism industry is called the chimneyless industry and is regarded as an important item of the 4th industry. This is why a lot of attention and research are needed for the tourism industry, including the travel industry. (Travel Injury) insurance policy is the content of an insurance contract prepared by an insurer to enter into an insurance contract with a number of policyholders. Insurance terms have important legal implications because both parties to the contract must follow. Since the scope of coverage in insurance contract is a matter of decision, the exemption is a matter of insurance contract. Thus, the reason for disclaimer can be set changed by the agreement of the parties, if it is not anti-social order. It is unusual in travel insurance contract(in this case) that accidents (injuries, death or physical disability resulted from injuries) occurring from the occupational electrical or mechanical work are regulated as the reason for disclaimer. This is because the risk of electric work and machinery work, which is different from the general schedule of travel, such as vacation, training, and exchange, is particularly high. It is a heterogeneous travel process, thus it has been excluded from insurance payment clause. In the light of travel insurance terms, it is justified that the suffocation during electrical work can be the reason of disclaimer in this case. I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. It is also reasonable to say that the deceased(the insured) has not violated the duty of disclosing the insured risks. The insured s real job was the manager of electricity, electronics, machinery and metal production department and not ‘a mere operator of other electrical, electronic, machinery and metal-related jobs . And it is not enough to admit that the deceased(insured) has falsely disclosed his job by intent or gross negligence. It is not a violation of the duty of disclosure if the policyholder notified the insurance recruiter of his own job as it was, but the insurance recruiter reported it incorrectly to the insurer. And it is clear that the opposing party to be explained from the insurer regarding the terms and conditions is also the insurant(not the insured). In this case, it seems that the insurer issued and explained the insurance terms to the the insurant. Insurers that produce insurance products must achieve maximum efficiency at the lowest cost. Consumers who demand insurance contracts must achieve the best satisfaction to achieve Pareto optimum. In real insurance contracts, this is not possible. But if we hope approach the state as possible, we must stick to the principle of utmost good faith. The reason for the disclaimer can be also explained in this point.

키워드