타인을 위한 보험에서 보험계약자의 보험금청구권과 보험자대위의 관계

Relationship between the right to claim insurance money by the policyholder under the insurance for the benefit of a third party and the right of subrogation by the insurer

실무상 창고계약 또는 운송계약에서처럼 타인의 물건을 보관 또는 점유하는 자가 그 물건을 보험목적물로 하여 보험계약을 체결하는 경우가 많다. 이 경우 그 물건의 소유자도 자기 소유의 물건의 멸실ㆍ훼손으로 인하여 입게 될 손해에 대비하여 손해보험에 가입하는 경우가 있는데, 이렇게 물건의 소유자와 물건의 보관자가 동시 또는 이시에 이중으로 보험에 가입하는 경우에 지금까지의 대법원 판례는 보험계약의 내용, 보험 체결의 목적 및 경위 및 보험회사의 실무처리 관행 등 제반 사정을 참작하여 타인 소유의 물건에 체결된 보험계약의 성격을 판단하여 왔다. 이러한 제반 사정에 의하여 타인 소유의 물건에 체결된 보험계약의 법적 성격이 타인을 위한 손해보험이라고 판단하는 경우, 보험자대위에 관한 상법제682조와 1991년 12월 상법개정시 추가된 상법 제639조 제2항 단서가 상충하는 문제가 발생하게 된다. 현재까지 이에 대한 명확한 대법원 판례 없이 학설의 대립만 있어 왔으나, 이 사건에서 서울고등법원은 양 규정의 관계에 대하여 최초로 유의미한 해석론을 제시하였는바, 대상판결에 대한 평석을 통하여 타인을 위한 보험에서 보험계약자의 보험금청구권과 관련한 특칙 규정(상법 제639조 제2항 단서)과 보험자대위에 관한 상법 제682조와의 상충문제의 원인 및 해결방법을 찾아보고자 한다.

It is abundant in practice that a person who possesses or takes custody of another person's property under a storage contact or a carriage contract enters into a contract for insurance coverage for the property as insured risk. In such case, the owner of the property sometimes signs an indemnity insurance agreement for economic losses resulting from loss of or damage to the property. When the owner and the custodian simultaneously or at different hours enter into insurance contracts in respect of the same property in duplicate, the Supreme Court of Korea has determined the nature of the insurance coverage provided for the property owned by another person in consideration of the contents of the insurance contract; purpose and details behind the conclusion of the insurance contract; actual practice of the insurer; and other relevant circumstances. In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the insurance contract the storage owner made in respect of another person's property in his storage was insurance for the benefit of a third party under Article 639 of the Korean Commercial Code. The present case is noteworthy since the Supreme Court dealt the issue where subrogation by insurer pursuant to Article 682 of the Korean Commercial Code conflicts with proviso under Article 639(2) of the same Code, included at the amendments in December 1999. With respect to this particular issue, there has been no clear Supreme Court precedent but scholars' debates; in the present case, the Seoul High Court made a ruling thereon for the first time. As regards the issue of conflict between the aforesaid Articles, the prevailing scholarly view is that proviso of Article 639(2) of the Code should be applicable only in a case where the insured incident occurred as a result of reason for which the policyholder was irresponsible and the insurer agreed to cover for the damages in full. But, such a restrictive view is groundless under the current proviso, where there is no such restriction provided expressly. Hence, under the current provisions of the Code, it is considered that in the event that insurance for the benefit of a third party can be deemed to have characteristics of liability insurance, as in the present case, it would be difficult to construe that the insurer cannot exercise the right of subrogation to the policyholder's claim. It appears that the Seoul High Court reached the conclusion as above after considering such difficulty. Nevertheless, the ruling in the present case has its limits in that (i) it does not provide practical standards to determine under which circumstances insurance for the benefit of a third party has characteristics of liability insurance, (ii) such arbitral supplementation by court to a contract between private parties by interpreting that the insurer agreed to waive the right to indemnity under insurance for the benefit of a third party in order to solve the issue arising from the legislative inconsistency could be viewed as the court's aberration from its role of law-interpreter, and (iii) there is a concern that such interpretation would obscure the difference between property insurance and life insurance. Therefore, the issue in the foregoing should be resolved by deleting the proviso under Article 639(2) of the Code, which is in dissonance with the general principle in insurance law, but not by making a forced interpretation.