It is a meaningful task to review and analyze the implications of the insurance-related decisions in 2018. This is the conclusion of this article.
First, it is confirmed that the insurer has a 'protection obligation' in the insurance transaction. In case of breach of the insurance contract, it is recognized that the liability of illegal act is established. It is significant that the insurer should explain through such means as using appropriate additional materials such as product manuals if it is not within insurance policy.
Second, if the insurance contract is nullified or canceled in an insurance contract for a third party, the ruling is that the insurer can exercise the right to claim for unfair advantage against the insurance money paid to the beneficiary. However, it is not reasonable to regard the legal nature as a type of contract for a third party under the civil law.
Third, changes in the status of policyholders in life insurance contracts may affect the interests of insured persons, insurance beneficiaries, or the maintenance of insurance contracts. Therefore, the conditions requiring the acceptance of insurer is considered valid.
Fourth, if the value added tax on the attorney fee paid by the insured person can be deducted from the sales tax or refunded, the holding that it can not be included in the defensive cost is reasonable and justified as precedent.
Fifth, it is the time when the insured person can exercise the right to claim the insured money in the liability insurance, and at that point, the holding that the liability of the insured person for damages is finalized is a judgment verifying the past position. In addition, the court ruled that the definition of protection-type insurance and the interpretation of the concept of "stop" in the automobile insurance policy are justified, and both decisions are meaningful.