• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.365-387
• /
• 2000

One of the central and primary doctrine of the law of marine insurance is that the contract of indemnity entered into by assured and insurer is a contract of the utmost good faith. The notion of utmost good faith is a well established doctrine derived from the celebrated case of Carter v. Boehm(1766), decided long before the inception of the Marine Insurance Act(MIA). With the codification of the law, the principle found expression in sections $17{\sim}20$ of the MIA 1906. In section 17 is presented the general duty to observe the utmost good faith, with the following sections introducing particular aspects of the doctrine, namely, the duty of the assured and brokers to disclose material circumstances, and to avoid making misrepresentations. It is somewhat surprising that section 17, being a long founded doctrine, has not attracted the attention of the courts until very recently. Given that the most significant manifestations of uberrimae fidei are non-disclosure and misrepresentations, fulfillment of the obligation of utmost good faith was, not unreasonably, for a long time perceived in terms of the duty to disclose and not to misrepresent. However, Black King Shipping Corporation v. Massie, 'Litsion Pride'(1985) has clarified that the duty of disclosure stems from the duty of utmost good faith, and not vice versa. The duty of utmost good faith is an independent and overriding duty, with the ensuring sections on disclosure and representations providing mere illustrations of that duty. It is now clear that there are important questions with regard to the general doctrine and as to the nature and scope of any duty of good faith continuing after the contract of insurance is made which require separate and fuller discussion. The purpose of this paper is to review the nature and scope of the duty of utmost good faith.

• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제14권
• /
• pp.103-152
• /
• 2000

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the doctrine of utmost good faith in insurance law. The doctrine gives rise to a variety of duties, some of which apply before formation of the contract while others apply post-formation. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall structure and problems of the doctrine of utmost good faith in English marine insurance law. The results of analysis are as following : First, the requirement of utmost good faith in marine insurance law arises from the fact that many of the relevant circumstances are within the exclusive knowledge of the assured and it is impossible for the insurer to obtain the facts to make a appropriate calculation of the risk that he is asked to assume without this information. Secondly, the duty of utmost good faith provided in MIA 1906, s. 17 has the nature as a bilateral or reciprocal, overriding and absolute duty. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal in Skandia held that breach of the pre-formation duty of utmost good faith did not sound in damages since the duty did not arise out of an implied contractual term and the breach did not constitute a tort. Instead, the Court of Appeal held that the duty was an extra-contractual duty imposed by law in the form of a contingent condition precedent to the enforceability of the contract. Fourthly, the scope of the duty of utmost good faith is closely related to the test of materiality and the assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1) and 20(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Fifthly, the insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of the assured. Sixthly, the duty of utmost good faith is, in principle, terminated before contract is concluded, but it is undoubtful that the provision under MIA 1906, s. 17 is wide enough to include the post-formation duty. The post-formation duty is, however, based upon the terms of marine insurance contract, and the duty lies entirely outside s. 17. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 17 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. What is needed in English marine insurance law is to introduce a more sophiscated or proportionate remedy.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제63권
• /
• pp.63-88
• /
• 2014

The culpa in contrahendo is a doctrine that "damages should be recoverable against the party whose blameworthy conduct during negotiations for a contract brought about its invalidity or prevented its perfection". In China, Chinese Civil law gradually adopted Culpa in Contrahendo under the former 'economic contract law' and the 'general rules of the civil law', then the legal system of culpa in contrahendo was formally established under Contract Law of the People's Republic of China(CLPRC) in 1999. To put it concretely, Art. 42, 43, 58 of the Chinese Civil Law expressly establishes a culpa in contrahendo liability derived from a principle of good faith governing pre-contractual negotiations. however, in general, culpa in contrahendo has been recognized a independent legal liability as distinct from contractual default liability and torts liability. This article provides a general description of the characteristics of culpa in contrahendo under Chinese Contract Law, and both theoretical issues that have arisen in Chinese academics and relevant important precedent in Chinese Courts. This article also analyzed trend of judgment on precedents that the Supreme Peoples's Court of the PRC applied culpa in contrahendo.

• 예술인문사회 융합 멀티미디어 논문지
• /
• 제6권7호
• /
• pp.17-26
• /
• 2016

SK컴즈, 옥션, KT 등 대형 인터넷 서비스 제공자의 부주의로 인하여 이용자의 정보가 유출되는 정보유출사고가 국내에서 여러 차례 발생하였다. 이러한 해킹으로 인한 개인정보 유출사고에서 인터넷 서비스 제공자의 법적 책임 여부를 판단하기 위해서는 기존 법령 위반 또는 법 일반원칙인 신의칙 위반 여부를 살펴보아야 한다. 그러나 현재 인터넷 서비스 제공자의 신의칙상 책임 범위를 판단할 수 있는 객관적 기준은 없는 상황이다. 이러한 신의칙상 보호조치 의무의 범위의 불확정성은 기업들에게 불만을 초래하는 요인이 되므로 이 범위를 어떻게 확정할 것인지 그 판단범위로서 객관적인 지표의 제시가 필요하다. 하지만 앞서 언급된 법의 성격상 보호조치 의무의 범위를 확정하여 법령에 규정할 수 없으므로, 이를 해결하기 위해서는 단순히 법제도 차원에서 고민할 것이 아니라 융합적 차원에서의 접근방법이 필요하다. 이에 본 연구에서는 기술적 부분, 법제적 부분, 관리적 부분으로 나누어 융합적 관점에서 사업자의 주의의무 위반의 범위를 예견할 수 있는 객관적인 기준에 대한 방안에 대해 논의한다.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제22권8호
• /
• pp.392-402
• /
• 2022

본 논문은 주식회사의 대표이사가 이사회 결의를 흠결하여 거래한 경우에 거래 상대방인 제3자의 보호 범위에 관한 연구이다. 대표이사가 내부적 제한이나 법률상 제한을 위반하여 이사회 결의 없이 거래행위를 한 경우에 그 법적 효력이 문제된다. 이에 대법원은 새로운 법리를 선고하였다(대법원 2021. 2. 18. 선고 2015다 45451 전원합의체 판결). 대법원은 대상판결에서 내부적 제한과 법률상 제한을 구별하지 않고 「상법」 제389조 제3항 및 제209조 제2항에 근거하여 선의의 제3자를 보호하는 한편 중과실이 있는 제3자는 악의자로 평가하여 보호 대상에서 제외하는 법리를 판시하였다. 이러한 대법원의 새로운 법리는 거래 상대방인 제3자의 보호 범위를 확장시켰다는 점, 표현대표이사 사안 등에서 중과실이 있는 제3자를 악의자와 같이 평가하면서도 경과실이 있는 제3자를 보호 대상으로 본 관련 대법원 판결과 균형을 이뤘다는 점에서 의미가 있다.