• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제44권3호
• /
• pp.137-154
• /
• 2019

This study analyzes the major provisions of the UK Insurance Act 2015 and Marine Insurance Act 1906 on the duty of disclosure under the doctrine of utmost good faith. Marine insurance contracts are based on "utmost good faith" and one aspect of this is that MIA 1906 imposes a duty on prospective policy holders to disclose all material facts. In the Insurance Act 2015 of the United Kingdom, the contents of the precedent were enacted such that we have borrowed the legal principles of common law until now. The insurer is required to more actively communicate with the insurer rather than passively underwriting and asking questions of the insured. The Act details the insured's constructive knowledge of the 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. This is a default regime, which may be altered by agreement between the parties.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.1-14
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the reformed duty of fair presentation provisions and related caselaw of the Insurance Act 2015 to gain a clearer understanding of the differences between the Act and the preceding legislation. Design/methodology - The authors analyzed caselaw from South Korea and China that involved breaches of the duty of disclosure. Cases highlighting differences between the duties of disclosure and fair presentation were selected. Findings - Changes in the practice of marine insurance laws are expected from the application of the reformed duty of presentation provisions. In particular, the rights of the insured are expected to increase, resulting in the fairer conduct of insurance contracts. Due to the fact that the Insurance Act 2015 has only recently taken effect, the provisions of existing caselaw have not yet been applied. This has limited the authors' scope of analysis. Originality/value - This paper describes the implications of the duty of fair presentation by analyzing caselaw from South Korea and China that involves the duty of disclosure. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper that investigates the reformed duty of fair presentation provisions of the Insurance Act 2015 in the context of the legislation's implications for trade practices.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제72권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제77권
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2018

The United States of America is one of the most favoring countries in which mandatory pre-arbitration clauses in the form of adhesion contract have been widely recognized and supported by courts and the Federal Arbitration Act. However, after the financial crisis in 2008 and the National Arbitration Forum scandal in 2009, in enacting the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ('Dodd-Frank Act'), Section 1028(a) of the Act requires the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to provide Congress with a report on "the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between covered persons and consumers". Section 1028(b) also grants the CFPB the authority to "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of an agreement between a covered person and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties, if the Bureau finds that such a prohibition or imposition of conditions or limitations is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers." Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a report entitled "2015 Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015 (Report)" in March 2015. This paper examines some major legal issues of the Report and makes a few recommendations for Korean financial institutions which entered into the U.S. financial market or has a plan to do so in the near future.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권3호
• /
• 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.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제27권3호
• /
• pp.841-852
• /
• 2015

The objectives of this study are to amend of the Small Stream Maintenance Act. In general, small streams have diverse ecological and social characteristics because they are extensively formed across watersheds over time. However, small streams in Korea have been significantly degraded primarily because of human disturbances including stream maintenance activities. Especially, covered streams are majority problem in the Small Stream Maintenance. In order to improve this problem, the Small Stream Maintenance Act be amended to the Small Stream Management Act.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.419-477
• /
• 2017

우주 공간은 천연 자원의 보고로, 미래 인류의 지속적인 생존과 번영을 위해, 언젠가는 개척해야 할 영역이다. 문제는 우주에 존재하는 수많은 자원들의 수송, 이용, 처분과 같은 민간 차원의 배타적 소유권 행사가 국제법적으로 가능하냐는 것이다. 1967년 제정된 우주조약의 경우에는 우주에 대한 국가적 소유는 금지하고 있으나 사적 소유에 대하여는 아무런 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 따라서 민간 기업과 같은 사적 주체에 의한 우주 자원의 재산적 권리가 가능한 것은 아닌가 하는 해석을 할 수 있다. 지난 2015년 11월 25일 미국은, 이와 관련한 '상업우주발사경쟁력법'(CSLCA)을 제정하면서, 민간 기업의 소행성 자원과 우주 자원의 점유, 소유, 이용, 수송, 처분 등에 관한 재산적 권리를 명시적으로 인정하였다. 본 논문에서는 이와 같은 문제에 주목하여, 2015년 CSLCA의 구조와 법적 쟁점들을 검토해 보았다. 특히 우주 자원의 사적 소유권 쟁점을 중심으로, 국제우주법 체제의 제규정들과 비교 분석하였고, 이를 통해 CSLCA 제4편 SREU Act의 타당성 여부를 검증해 보았다. 결론은, 새로운 우주 시대를 위해 우주 자원의 '사적 소유권'을 보장할 필요가 있다는 것이다. 구체적으로는, 우주 천체와 우주 자원을 구분하여 파악하되, (1) 우주 천체로부터 분리되지 않은 비추출 우주 자원의 경우에는 사적 소유를 금지하며, (2) 우주 천체로부터 분리되어 추출된 우주 자원의 경우에는 사적 소유를 인정하여야 한다고 본다. 나아가 1967년 우주조약은 현대적 입법 환경에 맞추어, 새로운 우주 산업 시대를 보다 효율적으로 설계할 수 있는 방향으로 개선되어야 할 것이다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.47-64
• /
• 2015

Pursuant to Article 109(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act of Korea, a person, not an attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money, articles, entertainment or other benefits or who gives or promises to give those things to a third party, in compensation for providing or mediating legal services, such as examination, representation, arbitration(emphasis added), settlement, solicitation, legal consultation, making of legal documents, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding KRW 50 million or may be punished by both and there is no specific provision on qualification of arbitrator except on nationality of an arbitrator in the Arbitration Act of Korea. Then, the question arises, can any non-lawyer arbitrator who receives arbitrator's fees be punished in accordance with the Attorney-at-Law Act in Korea? To search for an answer for this matter, this paper examines the Arbitration Act or the Civil Procedure Code of 33 major countries in the world and explains a research on the participation ratio of non-lawyer arbitrators in all 360 arbitration cases registered in 2012 at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB).