• 한국항만경제학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국항만경제학회 2003년도 정기학술대회지
• /
• pp.271-294
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, I want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• 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the enforcement of the Insurance Act 2015 on 12 August 2016, ss 18~20 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906(MIA 1906) were repealed and substituted by the new concept of fair presentation.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.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.83-103
• /
• 1983

The duty of disclosure it is a preliminary requirement to effect marine insurance contract between the assured and the underwriter. The contract of Marine Insurance is called a uberrimae fidei contract, the assured, therefore, in the law of marine insurance, shall communicate a material circumstances to the latter before the policy to be effected. As growing the maritime industries in Korea, there is forming a larger marine insurance market, accordingly, and having a wide relation with the practice of the marine insurance in England. It means that the most of the legal theories of the marine insurance would be adopted by the English Marine Insurance Case Law and M.I.A., 1906. From the viewpoint of the said this author has tried out to study what is the duty of disclosure of the marine insurance based upon the English Marine Case Law.

• 보험의학회지
• /
• 제23권
• /
• pp.16-31
• /
• 2004

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• 보험의학회지
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.49-55
• /
• 2008

• 보험의학회지
• /
• 제17권
• /
• pp.109-125
• /
• 1998

• 재무관리연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.165-189
• /
• 2009

본 연구는 지분공시와 같은 증권시장의 제도가 투자자의 행태에 미치는 영향에 대하여 분석하였다. 자본시장통합법 개정 이전의 공시규정에 따르면 내부자는 본인의 거래를 공시하는데 있어 매매시점과 공시시점 사이에 공시시차를 가질 수 있다. 따라서 정보거래자는 공시시차를 이용하여 분할매매를 통해 본인의 거래를 은닉할 수 있으며, 분할매매를 용이하게 하기 위해 가능한 공시시차를 길게 가져갈 유인을 갖게 된다. 본 연구에서는 일차적으로 공시시차를 이용한 정보거래자의 전략적 행동이 국내시장에 존재하는가를 살펴보았다. 다음으로 이들의 전략적 행동이 공시일 이후의 초과수익에 미친 영향을 분석하여 이들의 은닉전략이 성공했는가를 분석하였다. 또한 추종거래의 존재를 가정하여 추종거래의 주가 영향력에 대하여도 살펴보았다. 주요 연구결과는 다음과 같다. 즉시공시 의무가 없는 주요주주의 경우 공시시차를 최대한 길게 가져갈 수 있는 월초에 매매를 시작하는 빈도가 다른 시점에 비하여 유의하게 높게 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 정보거래자들이 공시시차를 이용하여 전략적으로 행동한다는 직접적인 증거를 제시해주고 있다. 또한 중규모정보에 있어서 전략변수가 가장 높은 값을 갖는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 이들이 전략적인 매매를 통하여 초과수익을 실현했다는 실증적 근거는 나타나지 않았다. 한편 매도거래의 경우 매매일 시점에 주가가 과민반응하였으며, 공시일 이후 과도하게 하락한 부분이 회복되는 것으로 나타나 추종거래의 개연성도 있는 것으로 추정된다.

• 융합보안논문지
• /
• 제16권6_2호
• /
• pp.89-97
• /
• 2016

행정상 공표의 하나로 행하여지고 있는 인적사항공개는 법률에 의해 부과된 의무를 위반한 자에 대한 특정정보를 행정기관이 직접 또는 인터넷이나 신문, 방송 등 대중매체를 통하여 불특정 다수인에게 공개하는 제도이다. 이와 같은 인적사항공개제도는 의무위반자의 인적사항을 공개함으로써 의무위반자에게 그의 의무위반 사실을 불특정 다수인이 알 수 있다는 심리적 압박을 가하여 의무를 이행하도록 하는 간접적인 제재수단이다. 그러나 이러한 인적사항공개는 헌법이 보장하는 개인의 명예나 프라이버시에 대한 침해는 물론 개인정보보호라는 법률적인 문제뿐만 아니라 제도 그 자체의 실효성에 대한 의문도 계속되고 있다. 이에 따라 이 논문에서는 행정상 인적사항공개제도가 갖는 법률적인 문제점과 그 개선방안에 대해 검토함으로써 향후 인적사항공개제도의 효율적인 정비에 활용될 수 있을 것으로 기대한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.45-66
• /
• 2016

The FAA provides that a district court may make an order vacating an arbitration award upon the application of any party to the arbitration where there was evident partiality on the arbitrator's behalf. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth Coatings Corp. held that arbitrators must disclose to the parties "any dealing that might create an impression of possible bias." Justice White attempted to limit the scope of evident partiality to instances where an arbitrator has a "substantial interest" in the dispute before disclosure is required. The Second Circuit held that if an arbitrator thinks that a nontrivial conflict of interest might exist, the arbitrator must either (i) conduct an investigation into the potential conflict, or (ii) disclose to the parties why he or she thinks there could be a conflict. Further, the arbitrator must disclose his or her intent not to investigate the matter. By utilizing a reasonable impression of partiality standard, the Ninth Circuit held that evident partiality can exist despite an arbitrator's actual acknowledgement of a conflict, and if an arbitrator fails to discharge his or her duty to investigate potential conflicts of interest, his or her constructive knowledge of the conflicts can give rise to evident partiality.