Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Reserve deduction in annuity wording and insurer disclosure
Supreme Court, Oct. 16, 2025, 2022Da308747 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 보험금·보험금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Did the insurer discharge its duty under Article 638-3(1) of the Commercial Act and Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions to state and explain the main criteria for the annuity amount, where the reserve-deduction method appeared only as formulas in a document not handed to the policyholder, and does the contract survive once that method is excluded?
Holding
The Court held that the wording does not directly require the insurer to pay the whole published-rate benefit. It nevertheless held that the insurer had not sufficiently discharged its disclosure duty, because the main criteria for the annuity existed only as complex formulas in a document never handed to the policyholder, while the wording carried only a broad clause referring to that document. Even so, the contract survives on its remaining parts under Article 16 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, so the annuity payable is unchanged and all appeals were dismissed, though the reasoning below misstated the law on the duty.
Points at issue, verbatim
위와 같은 적립액 공제 방식에 대하여 명시·설명의무가 충분히 이행되었다고 보기 어렵지만, 적립액 공제 방식이 보험계약의 내용에서 제외된다고 하더라도 위 보험계약은 나머지 부분만으로도 유효하게 존속한다고 보는 것이 타당하므로 갑 회사가 을 등에게 지급하여야 하는 생존연금액은 달라지지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
it is difficult to regard the duty of explicit notice and explanation as having been sufficiently performed with respect to such method of deducting the reserve amount, but that it is appropriate to consider that the insurance contract continues to exist validly only as to the remaining part even if the method of deducting the reserve amount is excluded from the contents of the insurance contract, and that accordingly the amount of survivorship annuity that company A must pay to B, etc. remains unchanged
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 각자 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by each party.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 설명의무의 대상이 되는 ‘중요한 내용’이란 사회통념에 비추어 고객이 계약체결 여부나 대가를 결정하는 데 직접적인 영향을 미칠 수 있는 사항을 말하고
Unofficial English translation
Here, the 'important content' that is subject to the duty of explanation refers to matters that, in light of common social notions, may have a direct effect on the customer's decision whether to conclude the contract or on the consideration, and
Factors
- 연금액의 주요 산출기준 등이 보험계약자 등에게 교부되지도 않는 문서에 복잡한 수식만으로 기재되어 있을 뿐이고
- 약관에는 개요조차 명시되지 아니한 채 단지 그 문서에 따라 계산한다는 취지의 포괄적 지시조항만 기재되어 있는 경우
- 적립액 공제 방식이 보험계약의 내용에서 제외된다고 하더라도 위 보험계약은 나머지 부분만으로도 유효하게 존속한다고 보는 것이 타당하므로
- 명시·설명의무 위반으로 보험계약이 나머지 부분만으로 유효하게 존속하는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• the main standards for calculating the annuity amount, etc. are set out only in the form of complex formulas in a document that is not even delivered to the insurance contract holder, etc., and
• where the policy terms merely contain a general referral provision to the effect that the calculation shall be made in accordance with that document, without even specifying an outline thereof
• it is appropriate to consider that the insurance contract continues to exist validly only as to the remaining part even if the method of deducting the reserve amount is excluded from the contents of the insurance contract, and that accordingly
• where, by reason of a violation of the duty of explicit notice and explanation, the insurance contract continues to exist validly only as to the remaining part
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 11. 17. 선고 2014다81542 판결(공2015하, 1892)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2014Da81542 decided November 17, 2015 (Gong 2015 Ha, 1892)
Decisions referred to
[1][2][3] 대법원 2015. 11. 17. 선고 2014다81542 판결(공2015하, 1892) / [1][3] 대법원 2025. 3. 13. 선고 2023다250746 판결(공2025상, 649) / [1] 대법원 2008. 12. 16. 자 2007마1328 결정(공2009상, 29), 대법원 2010. 3. 25. 선고 2009다91316, 91323 판결, 대법원 2014. 7. 24. 선고 2013다217108 판결(공2014하, 1721) / [3] 대법원 2010. 11. 25. 선고 2010다45777 판결(공2011상, 13)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the reserve-deduction method breached the disclosure duty yet the contract survives on its remaining parts, may the policyholder claim damages for that breach?
A later decision awarding or refusing damages for breach of the disclosure duty in immediate annuity cases would change this reading. Any amendment to Article 638-3 of the Commercial Act or to Article 3 or Article 16 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions also calls for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 23 November 2022 (2021Na2031635, 2031642), dismissed the policyholders' claims. It held that the wording contained a clear clause referring to the calculation methods document, so that the calculation provision was either part of the terms or at least presupposed by them, and the formula for the inheritance-maturity type was unambiguous. It limited the insurer's duty to explaining the approximate annuity and its fluctuation, treated the reserve-deduction method as a mere simplified reading of the formula, and treated the estimates in the design sheets as sufficient. In the alternative, it held that excluding the document would void the whole contract, so the policyholders could not claim the annuity while asserting its validity.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this reasoning misread the duty to state and explain. The monthly annuity is an important matter, and where the main calculation criteria exist only as formulas in a document not handed to the policyholder and the wording carries only a broad reference clause, the duty is not sufficiently discharged. It found no error in the interpretation that the wording does not directly require payment of the whole published-rate benefit, and held that under Article 16 the contract remains valid on its remaining parts, so the annuity payable is unchanged and the judgment stands; the Justices unanimously dismissed all the appeals.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the wording states the main calculation criteria for the annuity in standardised Korean terms, so that the duty to state was discharged.
- A case in which the insurer gave the policyholder an individual and concrete explanation of the main calculation criteria at contracting, since the duty to explain fails only absent special circumstances.
- A case in which excluding the calculation provision would make the purpose of the contract unattainable or unreasonably disadvantage one party, so the whole contract becomes void under Article 16.
Record verification notes
Set the documents actually given at contracting, the wording, the design sheets and any individual explanation against the points the Court named: whether the criteria appear in Korean, whether only a broad reference clause exists, and whether the policyholder could have predicted the deduction from the product's structure. Confirm the contract is an inheritance-maturity immediate annuity with the maturity amount equal to the whole premium and a non-participating design, since the finding that the remaining parts sustain the contract rests on that structure. The Court accepted that the wording does not require payment of the whole published-rate benefit, so an argument built only on that reading will not reach the shortfall.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 보험자 등이 보험계약 체결 시 부담하는 보험약관의 명시·설명의무의 내용 / 여기서 설명의무의 대상이 되는 ‘중요한 내용’의 의미 및 이에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 / 보험자의 명시·설명의무가 면제되는 경우 / 보험자가 보험약관 명시·설명의무를 위반하여 보험계약을 체결한 경우, 약관의 내용을 보험계약의 내용으로 주장할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 연금보험계약에서 향후 지급받는 연금액 및 연금액의 주요 산출기준에 대한 보험자 등의 명시·설명의무의 내용 / 연금액의 주요 산출기준 등이 보험계약자 등에게 교부되지도 않는 문서에 복잡한 수식만으로 기재되어 있을 뿐이고 약관에는 개요조차 명시되지 아니한 채 단지 그 문서에 따라 계산한다는 취지의 포괄적 지시조항만 기재되어 있는 경우, 보험자의 명시의무가 충분히 이행되었다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극) 및 이러한 약관의 내용을 기초로만 설명이 이루어진 경우, 설명의무가 이행되었다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) [3] 명시·설명의무 위반으로 보험계약이 나머지 부분만으로 유효하게 존속하는 경우, 보험계약의 내용을 확정하는 방법 및 보험약관의 해석에서 객관적 해석의 원칙 [4] 갑 보험회사와 상속만기형 즉시연금보험계약을 체결하였거나 이를 승계한 을 등이, 갑 회사가 순보험료에 매월 정하는 공시이율을 곱하여 계산한 금액 전액을 생존연금으로 지급하여야 함에도 그중 일부를 만기보험금 지급 재원 마련을 위하여 공제하고 나머지 금액만 지급하였는데 이러한 적립액 공제 방식은 약관에 명시되지 않았고 이에 대하여 설명하지도 않았다고 주장하며 갑 회사를 상대로 미지급 생존연금액 등의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 위와 같은 적립액 공제 방식에 대하여 명시·설명의무가 충분히 이행되었다고 보기 어렵지만, 적립액 공제 방식이 보험계약의 내용에서 제외된다고 하더라도 위 보험계약은 나머지 부분만으로도 유효하게 존속한다고 보는 것이 타당하므로 갑 회사가 을 등에게 지급하여야 하는 생존연금액은 달라지지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The content of the duty of explicit notice and explanation of insurance policy terms that an insurer, etc. bears upon concluding an insurance contract / The meaning of the 'important content' that is subject to the duty of explanation here and the criteria for determining whether it falls within such content / Cases in which the insurer's duty of explicit notice and explanation is exempted / Whether, where an insurer has concluded an insurance contract in violation of the duty of explicit notice and explanation of the insurance policy terms, the insurer may assert the contents of the policy terms as the contents of the insurance contract (negative) [2] The content of the duty of explicit notice and explanation of an insurer, etc. with regard to the annuity amount to be paid in the future and the main standards for calculating the annuity amount in an annuity insurance contract / Whether, where the main standards for calculating the annuity amount, etc. are set out only in the form of complex formulas in a document that is not even delivered to the insurance contract holder, etc., and the policy terms merely contain a general referral provision to the effect that the calculation shall be made in accordance with that document, without even specifying an outline thereof, the insurer's duty of explicit notice may be regarded as having been sufficiently performed (negative), and whether, where an explanation has been made only on the basis of the contents of such policy terms, the duty of explanation may be regarded as having been performed (in principle, negative) [3] The method of determining the contents of an insurance contract where, by reason of a violation of the duty of explicit notice and explanation, the insurance contract continues to exist validly only as to the remaining part, and the principle of objective interpretation in the construction of insurance policy terms [4] A case in which B, etc., who had concluded with insurance company A a survivorship-maturity-type immediate annuity insurance contract or succeeded thereto, asserted that, although company A was obliged to pay, as survivorship annuity, the entire amount calculated by multiplying the net premium by the publicly announced interest rate determined each month, it withheld a portion thereof to secure funds for payment of the maturity insurance benefit and paid only the remainder, that such method of deducting the reserve amount was not specified in the policy terms and was not explained, and sought payment of the unpaid survivorship annuity amount, etc. against company A, in which the court held that it is difficult to regard the duty of explicit notice and explanation as having been sufficiently performed with respect to such method of deducting the reserve amount, but that it is appropriate to consider that the insurance contract continues to exist validly only as to the remaining part even if the method of deducting the reserve amount is excluded from the contents of the insurance contract, and that accordingly the amount of survivorship annuity that company A must pay to B, etc. remains unchanged
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 각자 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by each party.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상법 제638조의3 제1항, 약관의 규제에 관한 법률 제3조 / [2] 상법 제638조의3 제1항, 약관의 규제에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호, 제3조 / [3] 상법 제638조의3 제1항, 약관의 규제에 관한 법률 제3조, 제5조 제1항, 제16조, 민법 제105조 / [4] 상법 제638조의3 제1항, 약관의 규제에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호, 제3조, 제5조 제1항, 제16조, 민법 제105조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger