• Journal of Teachers' Pension
• /
• v.4
• /
• pp.91-123
• /
• 2019

본 연구는 2009년 법 개정에 따른 기준소득의 변경이 가입자별 보험료 부담과 연금급여의 변경에 어떠한 영향을 주었는지를 구체적 사례를 중심으로 살펴봄으로써 제도 변경 전후의 가입자별의 연금소득 변화를 산정함과 아울러, 2015년 사학연금법 개정에 따른 사학연금 가입자간 소득재분배제도의 도입이 2009년 법 개정에 따른 연금소득효과에 어떠한 영향을 주었는지를 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 사학연금가입자의 경우 법 개정 당시의 전제가 되었던 기준소득대비 보수월액의 비율인 65% 수준에 근접하는 사람은 일부에 불과한 것으로 나타났다. 즉, 60~70%기준에 포함되는 계층은 5.6%에 불과하고, 60% 이하인 자가 88.6%, 70% 이상인 자는 5.8%로 나타났다. 이는 사학연금 가입자 상당수가 기존의 보수월액이 실제 과세소득의 일정비율보다 낮은 위상에 있었음을 의미한다. 따라서 2009년 법 개정 결과, 처음의 기대와는 달리 개정 이전 연금액에 비하여 높아지는 가입자가 87.5%, 낮아지는 가입자가 12.5%인 것으로 나타났다. 그렇지만 연금액이 증가되었지만 보험료 부담이 함께 증가되었기 때문에 수익비 측면에서 더 유리해졌다고 할 수 없다. 더 부담하고 더 많이 받는 경우가 대다수였다. 물론, 오히려 기준소득이 보수월액보다 절대치조차 낮은 가입자도 있었다. 이 경우, 본인의 희망에 따라 법령에서 별도로 정한 최저소득기준을 선택할 수 있도록 함으로써 문제점이 완화되었다. 2009년 법 개정 상에 나타난 연금액 증가는 소득재분배 요소를 도입한 2015년 법 개정으로 상대적으로 저소득 가입자는 연금액이 증가하고 고소득자는 연금액이 감소됨으로써, 2009년 법 개정에서 나타난 고소득자에게 유리할 수 있는 부분이 완화되는 결과를 만들었다. 2015년 개정은 2009년 개정 상 발생한 문제를 다소 보완하는 결과가 되었다. 공무원의 보수월액을 적용하여왔던 제도를 기준소득월액으로 바꾼 것은 사학연금 가입자가 실제의 소득에 기초하여 보험료를 부담하고 연금을 지급받을 수 있도록 되었다는 점에서 제도의 정상화로 보는 것이 바람직하다. 소득기준의 전환으로 내재적으로 혼란이 발생할 가능성이 있었지만, 2015년의 법 개정으로 제도가 보다 완결적으로 발전가능하게 된 것으로 평가된다.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.72
• /
• pp.57-80
• /
• 2016

Since 2006, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission have been engaged in a major review of insurance contract law, finally leading to the legislation of Insurance Act 2015. According to the enforcement of the Insurance Act 2015 on 12 August 2016, ss 18~20 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906(MIA 1906) were repealed and substituted by the new concept of fair presentation. This article intends to analyze the legal implications through the comparative research between the duty of fair presentation in Insurance Act 2015 and ss 18~20 of MIA 1906. The major changes in Insurance Act 2015 are designed to (1) encourage active engagement by the insurer rather than passive underwriting, asking questions of the insured if the desired information is not provided at the stage of proposal; (2) encourage policyholders to structure and signpost their presentation in an clear and accessible way, and prevent data dumps; (3) give guidance as to how the insured should prepare a fair presentation, by undertaking a reasonable search of available information and giving examples of what circumstances might be material; (4) clarify whose knowledge in the insured's organization is attributed to the insured for the purposes of disclosure; (5) clarify the exceptions to the duty of disclosure, including circumstances "which are known or presumed to be known to the insurer"; and (6) replace the remedy of avoidance in all circumstances with more proportionate remedies. This is a default regime, which may be altered by agreement between the parties.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.171-194
• /
• 2016

In the UK, the legal principle for the duty of disclosure established in Carter v Boehm case was codified in the Marine Insurance Act 1906("MIA"). The duty of disclosure under the MIA is the pre-contractual duty by the insured and therefore, the insured should disclose the every material circumstance that would influence a prudent insurer's judgement. If the insured violates the duty of disclosure, the insurer is entitled to avoid the insurance contract, regardless of whether there was the deliberate or reckless breach, which is unfavorable to the insured. The Law Commission reviewed the duty of disclosure under the MIA in detail and provided the Insurance Act 2015 for the purpose of enhancing the interests of the insured. The Insurance Act 2015("Act"),while the basic legal structure of the duty of disclosure under the MIA still remains, amends it in respect of non-consumer insurance and furthermore, integrate the duty of disclosure and the duty not to misrepresent into the duty of fair presentation of risk. And according to the Act, the insurer is required to more actively communicate with the insured before entering the contract with the result that, if the insured fails to disclose the material circumstance but provides the sufficient information to put the insurer on notice, the insurer should further inquire for the purpose of the insured's revealing the material circumstance. In addition, the Act details the insured's constructive knowledge of material circumstance by reviewing the current case law and introduces a new system for the insurer's proportionate remedy against the insured's breach of the duty of fair presentation of risk.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.125-145
• /
• 2017

Where an insurer has unreasonably refused to pay a claim or paid it after unreasonably delay, the existing law in England does not provide a remedy for the insured. Accordingly, the insured is not entitled to damages for any loss suffered as a result of the insurer's unreasonable delay. This legal position differs from the law in Scotland and most major common law jurisdictions. LC thought that the legal position in England is anomalous and out of step with general contractual principles. LC considered that a policyholder should have a remedy where an insurer has acted unreasonably in delaying or refusing payment of claim, and, therefore, recommended a statutory implied term in every insurance that the insurer will pay sums due within a reasonable time and breach of that term should give rise to contractual remedies, including damages. More detailed recommendations of LC are as followings. First, it should be an implied term of every insurance contract that, where an insured makes a claim under the contract, the insurer must pay sums due within a reasonable time. Secondly, a reasonable time should always include a reasonable time for investigating and assessing a claim. Although a reasonable time will depend on all the relevant circumstances, for example, the following things may need to be taken into account, that is, (1) the type of insurance, (2) the size and complexity of the claim, (3) compliance with any relevant statutory rules or guidance, and (4) factors outside the insurer's control. Thirdly, if the insurer can show that it had reasonable grounds for disputing the claim(whether as to pay or not, or the amount payable), the insurer does not breach the obligation to pay within a reasonable time merely by failing to pay the claim while the dispute is continuing. In those circumstances, the conduct of the insurer in handling the dispute may be a relevant factor in deciding whether the obligation was breached and, if so, when. Fourthly, Normal contractual remedies for breach of contract should be available for breach of the implied term to pay sums due within a reasonable time. Finally, In non-consumer insurance contracts, the insurer should be permitted to exclude or limit its liability for breach of the obligation to pay sums due within a reasonable time, unless such breach was deliberate or reckless, and such an insurer's right to contract out will be subject to satisfying the transparency requirements.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.3
• /
• pp.133-146
• /
• 2020

In the UK's the insurance law 2015, a remedy for breach of warranty in marine insurance was introduced. Also, if the insured proves that breach of warranty in marine insurance does not affect damages, the insurer pays the insurance money to the insured. The UK's marine insurance law has served as the governing law that has been the standard for the marine insurance industry for a long time. Korea and China were heavily influenced by the UK maritime insurance law. Therefore, this study analyzed the cases of breach of warranty in marine insurance in Korea and China. Through this, the insurer avoid the insurance contract for an accident that occurred after the breach of warranty. this result will be different under the new revised insurance law system. With the revision to The Insurance Act 2015, one of the biggest change in the insurance system is that it is possible to remedy of the violations of warranty. However, such a revision of the law requires considerable attention as it also changes the interpretation and judgment of the courts. Accordingly, a practical response of the insurance industry is required. It is necessary to prepare for possible disputes in practice.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.73
• /
• pp.65-90
• /
• 2017

The rule of warranty in English insurance law was established in the second part of the $18^{th}$ century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of insurance contract and developed very different rule of insurance law, especially in the field of warranty. At the time of Lord Mansfield, warranty, that is, the promise given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed since the age of Lord Mansfield. English and Scottish Commissions proposed very dramatic reform of law in the field of warranty law to reflect the changes of legal environment through the Insurance Act 2016. This article intends to consider the legal implications through the comparative analysis between the new regime of warranty in the Insurance Act 2015 and MIA 1906. The major changes in the Insurance Act 2015 are summarized as following. First, Basis of the contract clauses in non-consumer insurance contracts should be of no effect and representations should not be capable of being converted into warranties by means of a policy term or statement on the proposal form. This requirement should not be capable of being avoided by the use of a contract term and the arrangement of contracting out by parties should be of no effect. Secondly, The existing remedy for breach of warranty, that is, automatic discharge of the insurer's liability, should be removed. Instead, the insurer's libility should be suspended from the point of breach of warranty and reattach if and when a breach of warranty has been remedies. Thirdly, A breach of warranty should genally be regarded as remedied where the insured ceases to be in breach of it. In the other hand, for time-specific warranties which apply at or by an ascertainable time, a breach should be regarded as remedies, if the risk to which the warranty relates later, becomes essentially the same as that originally contemplated by the parties. Fourthly, where a term of an insurance contract relates to a particular kind of loss, or loss at a particular location/time, the breach of that term should only give the remedy in relation to loss of that particular kind of loss, or at a particular location/time. Finally, whether a term of an insurance contrat relates to loss of a particular kind of at a particular location/time should be determined objectively, based on whether compliance with that ther would tend to reduce the risk of the occurrence of that category of loss.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.407-426
• /
• 2016

The Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906) has been a successful piece of legislation, having rarely been amended and having established, or served as an influence in the development of, the basis of marine insurance legislation in several countries. However, it has been recognised that some parts of the MIA 1906 have begun to show their antiquated nature, especially where established principles which were once thought to reflect undoubted propositions of law are now being openly criticised. Since 2006, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission (the 'Law Commissions') have been engaged in a major review of insurance contract law, finally leading to the Insurance Act 2015. The Insurance Act 2015 received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015, and was based primarily on the joint recommendations of the Law Commissions. The 2015 Act made substantial changes to several main areas of marine insurance law & practice: (i) the replacement of the pre-contractual duty of disclosure with a duty to make a "fair presentation of the risk"; (ii) the abolition of the "insurance warranty" under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, s.33, and provision of a new default remedy of suspension of liability until the breach is cured; (iii) partial codification of the fraudulent claims rule in insurance contract law, etc. The Act did not provide for any new statutory duty for insurers to investigate or pay claims in a timely fashion, although this may be revisited in the next Parliament. Moreover, the Law Commissions have reopened their consideration of the doctrine of insurable interest. The 2015Actmay not then signal the end of the legislative programme in this area.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.313-323
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this study was to investigate trends in dental sedation of Korean children and adolescents. A retrospective study was conducted on patients under 20 years of age who received dental treatment under sedation using National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort Database from 2002 to 2015. Based on the 1 million standard data, there were 436 cases of dental treatment under sedation in 2002, but 4002 cases in 2015, showing a trend increasing every year. The 3 - 5 year old group accounted for the largest portion (54.2%), while the 6 - 8 year old group increased recently. Nitrous oxide inhalation sedation is the most commonly used, accounting for 45.9% in 2002, but increased to 89.5% in 2015. Combination of nitrous oxide inhalation sedation, chloralhydrate and hydroxyzine was the most common, accounting for 5.7% in 2002, but decreased to 2.9% in 2015. There is a trend to use the sedation method more safely and in a way that reduces side effects.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

In Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication, Realice's anchor became entangled with a working fiber-optic submarine cable during its voyage and are presentative of the shipowner(the captain) cut the cable. The owner of the cable brought a claim for the repair cost against the shipowner. The shipowner then advanced a third party claim against a liability insurance underwriter. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that the shipowner was entitled to limit its liability under the 1976 Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The SCC also ruled that even though the misdeed of the shipowner was insufficient to break its right to limitation of liability, its wrongdoing constituted willful misconduct under the 1993 Canada Marine Insurance Act, allowing the underwriter to deny coverage for the incident. Thecasewasthefirsttoaddresstheinterrelationship between the shipowner's right to limit liability under the international convention regime and the availability of liability insurance with respect to such limited liability. This study analyzes the reasoning behind the SCC's judgment and evaluates the appropriateness of this court's decision based on the current maritime industry as well as prevailing maritime law. It concludes that the SCC's decision to declare that the shipowner retained the right to limit its liability is appropriate under the Limitation Convention (1976). However, its declaration that the liability insurer was discharged from liability is not correct in due consideration of the common recognition in the maritime industry, the intended purpose of a third party's right against the liability insurer, and the adoption process of the conduct barring limitation. Based on the SCC's decision, this study finally reviews the issue of the shipowner's right to limit and the coverage of the liability insurer in the Sewol case (2014).

• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.173-218
• /
• 2018

This study focuses on the healthcare sector in Vietnam which is promoting universal health insurance for the achievement of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) under Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The purpose of this study is to examine the characteristics of the reform process of the health care system and the law on health insurance through the historical and cultural contexts and its implications from the perspective of development. Based on the three dimensions of UHC - extension of protection for population, provision of various medical services, and financial protection, the current status of the Vietnam healthcare sector is summarized respectively as follows. First, according to the revised Health Insurance law which came into effect in 2015, the mandatory health insurance premiums are calculated based on household units. Second, there is a medical network that can provide preventive and healthcare services centered on primary health care facilities, for example commune health stations (trạm y $t{\hat{e}}$ $X{\tilde{a}}$). Third, out-of-pocket expenditure is still a large proportion although public spending has increased and private spending has decreased since the enforcement of the health insurance law and various schemes. Vietnam is currently striving towards a universal health care system. The development of institutions and systems should be designed in a way that is appropriate for the members of the society rather than efficiency. This article findings shed light on the role of social values, family culture, and informal institutions.