북한의 보험법 연구- 보험계약 통칙적 내용을 중심으로 -

Abstract

북한의 보험법은 사경제 주체의 자유로운 사업상 위험을 회피하게 하려는 것이 아니라 경제감독적 차원에서 제정된 것이다. 보험사업도 공행정의 하나로 보고, 보험료의 축적과 보험금 기금의 관리는 국가 경제안정의 수단임과 동시에 경제정책의 일종으로 간주된다. 보험법의 원리로서 자발성(자원성), 의무성, 신용성이 거론되는데 그 중 자발성(자원성)과 의무성은 상호 모순되는 성격을 지니고 있고 신용성은 보험계약상 국제적으로 정립된 원칙을 수용한 것으로 평가된다. 북한에서도 보험계약의 당사자는 보험계약자와 보험자이다. 보험사업자인 보험자는 원칙적으로 국가기관(국가보험감독기관)만이 담당하고 특수경제지대에서만 그 예외가 인정된다. 보험모집 종사자로서는 보험모집인, 보험대리상은 없고 보험중개인제도만 존재한다. 그런데 보험중개인의 권한, 권리, 의무, 책임이 어떠한지에 대해서는 전혀 정한 바가 없다. 북한의 보험계약법도 피보험이익을 요구하지만 일부보험, 초과보험, 중복보험 등에 관한 규율이 분명하지 않고, 보험계약 자체가 우리처럼 원칙적으로 낙성?불요식 계약이 아니라 요물계약성, 요식계약성의 성질을 띠고 있다. 보험자 대위에 있어서도 제3자 대위만 규정하고 잔존물 대위에 대해서는 명문이 없다.I hope that this paper dealing with the North Korea’s Insurance Act (Life insurance law) could be helpful to understand North Korea’s society. As I believe it is possible to know the member’s social consciousness of a society, human relationship and even the society’s essential structure through studying the norms of it. Furthermore, I wish this study can be useful in South Korea’s economical cooperating with North Korea in the future as well as looking at North Korea’s social welfare system and insurance contract. Though currently it is difficult enacting the Uniform Insurance Code or doing economic cooperation between South-North Korea, even preparing the unification, this study is necessary considering over the dynamic international circumstances around the Korean peninsula, I think.Specifically looking up North Korea’s Insurance Act, it requires insurable interest in the general rule, so we can interpret that it is needed in the life insurance contract. However, there is no concrete statute concerning the insurable interest at all in North Korea’s Insurance Act. By it, if there happens insurance accident during insurance period, the insurer should pay insurance money, whereas if the insurance accident does not happen, the insurer should pay the expiration money to the insured. In this case, the expiration money is the part of the insurance premium paid by the insured and may be much less than the insurance money. In addition, the designation of the insurance beneficiary in North Korea is much different from that of the South Korea. I presume that’s why the public insurance system is main rather than the private one in North Korea, and the liberal status of the contractual party should not be approved there. North Korea’s Insurance Act stipulates special paying system in passenger’s insurance contract and casualty insurance contract which is different from the general life insurnace money’s paying. North Korea’s Insurance Act provides that when one make life insurance contract over another person’s life, the other person’s written consent is required. But by that Act, the policyholder has not the right of designating the beneficiaries. In North Korea, the insured is able to decide the beneficiary’s percentage of the revenue equally or unequally. South Korea’s Commercial Act concerning the insurer’s subrogation to a third party allows such subrogation even when the insurer did not pay the full insurance money, while North Korea’s Act does not stipulate at all about this issue. We can consider the following three ways in South-North Korea’s cooperation in the field of life insurance law. (ⅰ) First, the option of choosing among the regulations of the South and the North. (ⅱ) secondly, the enactment of the Uniform insurance terms and conditions compromising between the Insurance Act of South Korea and North. (ⅲ) Third, solving the problem of contradiction of the terms between South Korea and North by interpreting the articles reasonably, which is the last solution.