보증보험계약의 특성 및 효력

A Study Concerning the Guaranty Insurance -specially surety on the installment basis-

보증적 성격과 보험적 성격을 가지고 있는 보증보험은 그 양면적 성격으로 인해 보험과는 다소 다른 특성을 보이고 보험법리의 적용이 일부 배제되는 부분이 있다. 이러한 보증보험중 채무이행보증에 해당하는 할부판매보증보험과 관련하여 과거에는 판매회사(제조회사)들이 물건을 할부판매하고 그 할부대금채권의 이행을 확보하기 위해 할부판매보증보험증권을 제출받아 왔으나 할부금융사들이 등장하여 판매회사는 구매자들이 할부금융사로부터 대출받은 금원으로 판매대금을 일시불로 지불받고 구매자는 할부금융사에게 할부금융대출금을 상환하며, 그 할부금융대출금채무의 이행을 확보받기 위해 할부금융특별약관부할부판매보증보험계약이 체결되어 왔다. 운수회사들은 고가의 차량을 구입하면서 이러한 제도를 이용하여 왔는데, 보증보험회사는 할부금융보증보험상품을 인가받지 못한 관계로 자동차회사의 할부판매계약서를 제출받고 할부금융특별약관부 할부판매보증보험증권을 발급하면서, 할부금융대출금을 상환하지 못할 경우 보험금을 할부금융사에게 지급하기로 약정하였다. 운수회사들이 할부금융회사에게 할부금융상환채무를 이행하지 못하게 되자 할부금융사, 보증보험회사, 자동차회사들 사이에 보증보험계약의 효력, 보증보험금의 지급책임 유무 등에 관한 분쟁이 발생하였다. 대법원의 최종적인 판결이 선고되지는 않았지만, 고등법원 판결들에서는 자동차회사를 할부금융특별약관부 할부판매보증보험계약의 피보험자로 보고 피보험이익의 부존재 또는 보험사고의 객관적 확정의 효과에 따라 보험계약을 무효로 판단하였다. 그러나 이는 보험계약당사자들의 목적과 보험실무에 부합하지 않는 측면이 있으므로 피보험자를 실질적으로 파악하여 할부금융회사로 보고 보증보험계약의 유효성을 인정하여 보증보험회사의 보험금 지급책임을 인정하되, 할부판매계약서의 작성제출과 관련한 손해배상책임문제를 이러한 보험금의 면부책과는 별도로 따져볼 필요가 있다.

Guaranty insurance has the characteristics of surety and insurance at the same time. Due to its ambivalent character, guaranty insurance has a different character from common insurance and therefore some applications of the principle of insurance law are excluded. Concerning the installment sale guaranty insurance of guaranty insurances, sellers in the past sold their products on an installment basis. Also, in order to secure the fulfillment of the installment claims, sellers used to order policy of installment sale guaranty insurance. However, the appearance of installment finance company made the buyers to pay the sellers in a lump sum by the loan from the installment finance company. The installment finance company begin to demand the policy of surety insurance from obligor, so the installment sale guaranty insurance attached by installment finance special clause is issued to the installment finance company in order to secure the fulfillment of the installment claims. Transportation companies submitted the above policy when buying expensive special equipped trucks. The issue of the installment finance guaranty insurance policy has not been approved by Financial Supervisory Service. so surety insurance company required and received the installment sale contract and issued the policies of the installment sale guaranty insurance attached by installment finance special clause adding a condition that when the transportation company cannot repay its installment finance loan, the surety company indemnify the installment finance company for the loss arisen from the default of transportation company. When the transportation companies were not able reimburse the installment finance loan, the lawsuit between the installment finance company, the surety company and the automobile company was brought to the court; the conflict about the effect of guaranty insurance policy and the responsibility of paying guaranty insurance. The decision of the Supreme Court has not been made. However, the High Court saw the seller as the insured of the installment sale guaranty insurance attached by installment finance special clause and found there were no insurable interest. The High Court judged the insurance contract as invalid. However, this does not accord with the purpose of the insurance in general and the intent of the parties. The installment finance company has to be specifically regarded as the insured and recognizing the effect of guaranty insurance policy, and the surety company should take the responsibility of the guaranty insurance to the installment finance company. However, the problem of liability for damage relating to submitting the false sale contract by installment has to be considered regardless of whether the surety company is responsible for the insurance.