Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
An unfair insurance application connected to an existing policy
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2025Da209932 (judgment)
Case name: 약정금·손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What does 'any other unfair conduct in applying for an insurance contract', prohibited by Article 97(1)(v) of the former Insurance Business Act, mean, and must the contract applied for be one similar in coverage to the existing insurance contract?
Holding
The latter clause covers any application for an insurance contract made by improper means in connection with, or linked to, an existing insurance contract. The contract applied for need not be one similar in coverage to the existing contract, because the former clause expressly says so while the latter clause speaks only of 'an insurance contract'. On this record the agent induced the plaintiffs to apply for the second contract by urging cancellation or the stopping of automatic transfers of the first contract and by offering to recoup some of the premiums through false hospitalisation, and the Supreme Court found the court below correct in holding that Article 97(1)(v) was thereby violated.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이 조항 후단에서 금지하는 ‘그 밖의 부당한 보험계약 청약행위’란 보험계약의 청약이 기존보험계약과 관련되거나 결부되어 부당한 방법으로 이루어진 경우를 뜻하고, 이때 청약의 대상이 되는 보험계약이 반드시 기존보험계약과 보장 내용 등이 비슷한 경우로 한정된다고 볼 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
The "other unfair acts of applying for an insurance contract" prohibited by the latter part of this Article means cases in which an application for an insurance contract is made in an unfair manner in connection with or in relation to an existing insurance contract, and the insurance contract that is the subject of the application cannot be regarded as necessarily limited to cases where it is similar in coverage and other matters to the existing insurance contract.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고(반소원고)가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant (counter-plaintiff).
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이 조항 후단에서 금지하는 ‘그 밖의 부당한 보험계약 청약행위’란 보험계약의 청약이 기존보험계약과 관련되거나 결부되어 부당한 방법으로 이루어진 경우를 뜻하고
Unofficial English translation
The "other unfair acts of applying for an insurance contract" prohibited by the latter part of this Article means cases in which an application for an insurance contract is made in an unfair manner in connection with or in relation to an existing insurance contract, and
Factors
- 기존보험계약의 부당소멸을 통한 새로운 보험계약의 청약행위, 새로운 보험계약의 청약을 통한 기존보험계약의 부당소멸행위와 함께 ‘그 밖의 부당한 보험계약 청약행위’를 각각 병렬적으로 금지하는 한편
- ‘새로운 보험계약’의 청약을 명시한 전단과 달리 후단에서는 ‘보험계약’의 청약이라고만 규정하고 있다
- 위 조항의 문언과 규정 체계, 형식에 부당한 계약전환을 방지하여 보험업 경영의 건전성을 도모하고 보험계약자 등 이해관계인의 권익을 보호하고자 하는 입법 취지를 더하여 보면
- 이 조항 후단에서 금지하는 ‘그 밖의 부당한 보험계약 청약행위’란 보험계약의 청약이 기존보험계약과 관련되거나 결부되어 부당한 방법으로 이루어진 경우를 뜻하고
- 이때 청약의 대상이 되는 보험계약이 반드시 기존보험계약과 보장 내용 등이 비슷한 경우로 한정된다고 볼 수는 없다
Unofficial English translation
• while respectively prohibiting in parallel, together with the unfair act of applying for a new insurance contract through the unfair lapse of an existing insurance contract and the unfair act of lapsing an existing insurance contract through an application for a new insurance contract, the "other unfair acts of applying for an insurance contract"
• unlike the former part, which expressly states an application for a "new insurance contract," the latter part provides only for an application for an "insurance contract"
• considering the text and the system and form of the provision of the foregoing Article, together with the legislative purpose of preventing improper contract conversion and thereby promoting the sound management of the insurance business and protecting the rights and interests of policyholders and other interested parties
• The "other unfair acts of applying for an insurance contract" prohibited by the latter part of this Article means cases in which an application for an insurance contract is made in an unfair manner in connection with or in relation to an existing insurance contract, and
• the insurance contract that is the subject of the application cannot be regarded as necessarily limited to cases where it is similar in coverage and other matters to the existing insurance contract
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How improper must the method be, and how closely must the new contract be linked to the existing one, for an application to fall within the latter clause?
A later decision defining the improper means required by the latter clause, or an amendment to Article 97 of the Insurance Business Act or to the Presidential Decree provision on similar coverage, would require this entry to be read again. Any further finding on the counterclaim for insult and threats would also change the record.
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 Central District Court, in its judgment of 22 January 2025 (2023Na79335, 2023Na79342), found that the defendant, then an agent of Meritz Fire & Marine Insurance, urged the plaintiffs to cancel their first insurance policy or stop its automatic transfers, and further offered to recoup some of the paid premiums through a false hospitalisation, so as to induce them to apply for the second insurance contract. It held that this made the plaintiffs apply for the second contract unfairly, in violation of Article 97(1)(v) of the former Insurance Business Act, and that the defendant and Meritz Fire & Marine Insurance were jointly liable in damages or consolation money. It rejected the defendant's counterclaim, finding the proof of insult and threats by the plaintiffs insufficient.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the reasons of the court below against the stated rule and the record, it held that the court below had not misapprehended the law on the meaning of 'any other unfair conduct in applying for an insurance contract', nor failed to examine what it needed to, nor violated the principles of logic and experience. It also found no error in rejecting the counterclaim for damages, and dismissed all the appeals on the unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned.
Distinguishing conditions
- An application for a new insurance contract that is not connected or linked to an existing insurance contract, since the latter clause reaches only applications made in that connection.
- An inducement to apply for a new contract carried out without any improper means, such as a mere offer of ordinary insurance terms.
- The defendant's counterclaim for damages for insult and threats, where the proof of those acts is insufficient, as the court below found in this case.
Record verification notes
Set out the two insurance contracts with their insurers, dates and premium arrangements, and then identify the act said to be improper: the urging of cancellation or of stopping automatic transfers, or the proposal involving false hospitalisation. Then confirm which version of the Insurance Business Act and which Presidential Decree provision on similar coverage governed, because the decision applies Article 97(1)(v) as it stood before the amendment by Act No. 17112 of 24 March 2020. Keep the counterclaim separate, since the rejection of it rests on insufficient proof of the alleged insult and threats.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 보험업법 제97조 제1항 제5호 후단에서 금지하는 ‘그 밖의 부당한 보험계약 청약행위’의 의미 및 이때 청약의 대상이 되는 보험계약이 반드시 기존보험계약과 보장 내용 등이 비슷한 경우로 한정되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Meaning of "other unfair acts of applying for an insurance contract" prohibited by the latter part of Article 97, paragraph (1), subparagraph 5 of the former Insurance Business Act, and whether the insurance contract that is the subject of the application must necessarily be limited to cases where it is similar in coverage and other matters to the existing insurance contract (negative)
Summary of the holding
구 보험업법(2020. 3. 24. 법률 제17112호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제97조 제1항 제5호는 "보험계약의 체결 또는 모집에 종사하는 자는 그 체결 또는 모집에 관하여 보험계약자 또는 피보험자로 하여금 이미 성립된 보험계약(이하 이 조에서 ‘기존보험계약’이라 한다)을 부당하게 소멸시킴으로써 새로운 보험계약(대통령령으로 정하는 바에 따라 기존보험계약과 보장 내용 등이 비슷한 경우만 해당한다. 이하 이 조에서 같다)을 청약하게 하거나 새로운 보험계약을 청약하게 함으로써 기존보험계약을 부당하게 소멸시키거나 그 밖에 부당하게 보험계약을 청약하게 하거나 이러한 것을 권유하는 행위를 하여서는 아니 된다."라고 규정함으로써, 기존보험계약의 부당소멸을 통한 새로운 보험계약의 청약행위, 새로운 보험계약의 청약을 통한 기존보험계약의 부당소멸행위와 함께 ‘그 밖의 부당한 보험계약 청약행위’를 각각 병렬적으로 금지하는 한편, ‘새로운 보험계약’의 청약을 명시한 전단과 달리 후단에서는 ‘보험계약’의 청약이라고만 규정하고 있다. 위 조항의 문언과 규정 체계, 형식에 부당한 계약전환을 방지하여 보험업 경영의 건전성을 도모하고 보험계약자 등 이해관계인의 권익을 보호하고자 하는 입법 취지를 더하여 보면, 이 조항 후단에서 금지하는 ‘그 밖의 부당한 보험계약 청약행위’란 보험계약의 청약이 기존보험계약과 관련되거나 결부되어 부당한 방법으로 이루어진 경우를 뜻하고, 이때 청약의 대상이 되는 보험계약이 반드시 기존보험계약과 보장 내용 등이 비슷한 경우로 한정된다고 볼 수는 없다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고(반소원고)가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant (counter-plaintiff).
Provisions referred to
구 보험업법(2020. 3. 24. 법률 제17112호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조, 제97조 제1항 제5호
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