Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Statutory notice duty survives a breach of the duty to explain
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2024Da289680 (judgment)
Case name: 보험금[상법 제652조 제1항의 통지의무 위반을 이유로 보험계약을 해지할 수 있는지 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a policy clause concretises the notice duty under Article 652(1) of the Commercial Act, is the insurer exempt from the duty to disclose and explain that clause, and if the insurer concluded the contract in breach of that duty, is the application of Article 652(1) itself also excluded so that the insurer cannot rescind for breach of the statutory notice duty?
Holding
A notice duty of that kind is a statutory duty imposed by the Commercial Act, not a duty arising from the effect of the contract, and the insurer may rescind within one month of learning that it was neglected. A clause concretising that duty is not a mere repetition of the statute, so the duty to disclose and explain it is not exempted unless the policyholder already knew its content or it was common and predictable in the trade without separate explanation. Even where the insurer breached that duty, it merely loses the right to rely on the clause as part of the contract; the application of Article 652(1) is not excluded, so it may still rescind for a neglect of the statutory notice duty.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 약관조항은 상법 제652조 제1항 전단의 통지의무를 구체화하여 규정한 것으로 상법 제652조 제1항을 단순히 되풀이하거나 부연한 정도의 조항이라고 할 수 없으므로, 보험계약자가 위 약관조항의 내용을 잘 알고 있거나 거래상 일반적이고 공통된 것이어서 별도의 설명 없이도 충분히 예상할 수 있었던 사항이 아닌 한 보험자 등의 명시·설명의무가 면제된다고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
The above policy term is a provision stipulating in specific terms the duty of notification under the first part of paragraph (1) of Article 652 of the Commercial Act, and cannot be regarded as a provision that merely repeats or elaborates upon paragraph (1) of Article 652 of the Commercial Act; therefore, unless the policyholder was fully aware of the content of the above policy terms or the matter was ordinary and common in transactions such that it could be sufficiently anticipated without separate explanation, the duty of explicit explanation of the insurer etc. cannot be regarded as exempted.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그러나 보험자가 상법 제652조 제1항의 통지의무를 구체화하여 규정한 보험약관의 명시·설명의무를 위반하여 보험계약을 체결한 경우에도, 보험자는 그 약관의 내용을 보험계약의 내용으로 주장할 수 없을 뿐이고, 이때 상법 제652조 제1항의 적용까지 배제된다고 볼 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
However, even where the insurer has concluded an insurance contract in violation of the duty of explicit explanation of the insurance policy terms stipulating in specific terms the duty of notification under Article 652, paragraph (1) of the Commercial Act, the insurer merely cannot assert the content of those policy terms as the content of the insurance contract, and at such time it cannot be regarded that even the application of Article 652, paragraph (1) of the Commercial Act is excluded.
Factors
- 상법 규정에 의하여 인정되는 법정의무로서
- 그 사실을 안 날로부터 1월 내에 한하여 계약을 해지할 수 있다
- 상법 제652조 제1항 전단의 통지의무를 구체화하여 규정한 것으로
- 보험계약자가 위 약관조항의 내용을 잘 알고 있거나 거래상 일반적이고 공통된 것이어서 별도의 설명 없이도 충분히 예상할 수 있었던 사항이 아닌 한
- 보험자는 그 약관의 내용을 보험계약의 내용으로 주장할 수 없을 뿐이고
Unofficial English translation
• as a statutory obligation recognized by the provisions of the Commercial Act,
• may terminate the contract only within one month from the date of learning of such fact
• as a provision stipulating in specific terms the duty of notification under the first part of paragraph (1) of Article 652 of the Commercial Act,
• unless the policyholder was fully aware of the content of the above policy terms or the matter was ordinary and common in transactions such that it could be sufficiently anticipated without separate explanation,
• the insurer merely cannot assert the content of those policy terms as the content of the insurance contract, and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2010. 3. 25. 선고 2009다91316, 91323 판결, 대법원 2021. 8. 26. 선고 2020다291449 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da91316, 91323 decided March 25, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2020Da291449 decided August 26, 2021.
Decisions referred to
대법원 2010. 3. 25. 선고 2009다91316, 91323 판결, 대법원 2021. 8. 26. 선고 2020다291449 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How is it determined what date the insurer learned that the risk had markedly changed or increased, so that the one-month period in the latter part of Article 652(1) begins?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on whether the policyholder or the insured neglected the statutory notice duty, and whether the insurer acted within one month of learning it, will show how the rule works on these facts. An amendment to Article 652 of the Commercial Act or a later decision on the relation between the statutory duty and the clause would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How is it determined what date the insurer learned that the risk had markedly changed or increased, so that the one-month period in the latter part of Article 652(1) begins?” vs Independent “Did the policyholder or insured in this case know of a substantial change or increase in risk and fail to provide the required statutory notice?”
The primary reading asks when the insurer's knowledge starts the one-month period, while the independent reading asks whether the policyholder or insured knowingly failed to notify a substantial risk change.
그 약관조항은 상법 제652조 제1항 전단의 통지의무를 구체화하여 규정한 것으로 상법 제652조 제1항을 단순히 되풀이하거나 부연한 정도의 조항이라고 할 수 없으므로, 보험계약자가 위 약관조항의 내용을 잘 알고 있거나 거래상 일반적이고 공통된 것이어서 별도의 설명 없이도 충분히 예상할 수 있었던 사항이 아닌 한 보험자 등의 명시·설명의무가 면제된다고 볼 수 없다.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 Central District Court, in its judgment of 23 August 2024 (2022Na77691), held that the clause was important content subject to the duty to disclose and explain and that the insurer was not exempt from that duty. Because it could not be found that the insurer had performed that duty when the contract was concluded, the clause was not incorporated into the contract, and the court rejected the insurer's rescission asserted on breach of the post-contractual notice duty in the clause.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the finding that the insurer could not be regarded as having performed the duty to disclose and explain when the contract was concluded. It held, however, that by deciding only on the clause-based ground the court below had misread the relationship between Article 652 of the Commercial Act and the policy clause that concretises it, and had omitted necessary examination, since the notice letter and the pleadings from first instance onward had also raised breach of the statutory notice duty as a separate ground for rescission. The judgment was therefore reversed and remanded, so that the court below must examine whether the policyholder or the insured neglected the notice duty under Article 652(1).
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the policy clause merely repeats or supplements the notice duty in Article 652(1), so that the Court's reasoning that the clause concretises the statute does not apply.
- A case in which the policyholder already knew the content of the clause, or it was general and common in the trade and could be sufficiently foreseen without separate explanation, so that the duty to disclose and explain is exempted.
- A rescission asserted more than one month after the insurer learned that the notice duty had been neglected, since the right is limited to that period.
Record verification notes
Set the policy clause against the wording of Article 652(1) to see whether it concretises the statute or merely repeats it, since the duty to disclose and explain turns on that. Then fix the date on which the insurer learned of the changed risk, because rescission is confined to the month that follows, and check that the insurer pleaded the statutory ground separately as it did here from first instance onward.
From the official text
Points at issue
보험약관에서 상법 제652조 제1항의 통지의무를 구체화하여 ‘보험기간 중에 이륜자동차 또는 원동기장치자전거를 계속적으로 사용하게 된 경우에 지체 없이 회사에 알려야 하고, 이를 이행하지 않았을 때에는 회사가 계약을 해지할 수 있다.’고 정한 경우, 위 약관조항에 대한 보험자 등의 명시·설명의무가 면제되는지 여부(원칙적 소극) 및 보험자가 보험약관의 명시·설명의무를 위반하여 보험계약을 체결한 경우, 상법 제652조 제1항의 적용까지 배제되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Where the insurance policy terms specify the duty of notification under Article 652, paragraph (1) of the Commercial Act by providing that "if the insured comes to continuously use a motorcycle or motorized bicycle during the period of insurance, the insured must notify the Company without delay, and if this obligation is not performed, the Company may terminate the contract," whether the duty of explicit explanation of the insurer etc. with respect to the above policy terms is exempted (in principle, negative) and whether, where the insurer has concluded an insurance contract in violation of the duty of explicit explanation of the insurance policy terms, even the application of Article 652, paragraph (1) of the Commercial Act is excluded (negative)
Summary of the holding
보험기간 중에 보험계약자 또는 피보험자가 사고발생의 위험이 현저하게 변경 또는 증가된 사실을 안 때에는 지체 없이 보험자에게 통지하여야 한다(상법 제652조 제1항 전단). 이러한 통지의무는 보험계약의 효과로서 인정되는 의무가 아니라 상법 규정에 의하여 인정되는 법정의무로서, 보험계약자 또는 피보험자가 이를 해태한 때에는 보험자는 그 사실을 안 날로부터 1월 내에 한하여 계약을 해지할 수 있다(상법 제652조 제1항 후단). 만약 보험약관에서 ‘보험기간 중에 이륜자동차 또는 원동기장치자전거를 계속적으로 사용하게 된 경우에 지체 없이 회사에 알려야 하고, 이를 이행하지 않았을 때에는 회사가 계약을 해지할 수 있다.’고 정하였다면, 그 약관조항은 상법 제652조 제1항 전단의 통지의무를 구체화하여 규정한 것으로 상법 제652조 제1항을 단순히 되풀이하거나 부연한 정도의 조항이라고 할 수 없으므로, 보험계약자가 위 약관조항의 내용을 잘 알고 있거나 거래상 일반적이고 공통된 것이어서 별도의 설명 없이도 충분히 예상할 수 있었던 사항이 아닌 한 보험자 등의 명시·설명의무가 면제된다고 볼 수 없다. 그러나 보험자가 상법 제652조 제1항의 통지의무를 구체화하여 규정한 보험약관의 명시·설명의무를 위반하여 보험계약을 체결한 경우에도, 보험자는 그 약관의 내용을 보험계약의 내용으로 주장할 수 없을 뿐이고, 이때 상법 제652조 제1항의 적용까지 배제된다고 볼 수는 없다. 따라서 보험계약자 또는 피보험자가 상법 제652조 제1항 전단의 통지의무를 해태하였다면, 보험자는 이를 이유로 상법 제652조 제1항 후단에 따라 보험계약을 해지할 수 있다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
상법 제638조의3 제1항, 제652조 제1항, 약관의 규제에 관한 법률 제3조
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