【摘要】：所謂“無(wú)危險(xiǎn)無(wú)保險(xiǎn)”,危險(xiǎn)的客觀存在不僅成為保險(xiǎn)產(chǎn)生及發(fā)展的前提,也體現(xiàn)了保險(xiǎn)的意義。那么什么是危險(xiǎn)呢?一般認(rèn)為危險(xiǎn)是指意外事故或不可抗力所致?lián)p失發(fā)生的不確定的客觀狀態(tài)。通常,人都會(huì)厭惡損失,相應(yīng)地就會(huì)想方設(shè)法規(guī)避危險(xiǎn)。此時(shí),保險(xiǎn)就產(chǎn)生了。也就是說(shuō)保險(xiǎn)是一種專門針對(duì)危險(xiǎn)的危險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移機(jī)制,即投保人通過(guò)保險(xiǎn)合同的訂立,將保險(xiǎn)事故所致?lián)p失形式上轉(zhuǎn)移給保險(xiǎn)人,實(shí)質(zhì)上以保險(xiǎn)人為中介將危險(xiǎn)分散于危險(xiǎn)團(tuán)體的一種機(jī)制。但實(shí)際上并非所有的危險(xiǎn)都可以通過(guò)保險(xiǎn)來(lái)進(jìn)行規(guī)避。那些可以通過(guò)保險(xiǎn)來(lái)進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)移的危險(xiǎn)叫做可保危險(xiǎn)。通說(shuō)認(rèn)為可保危險(xiǎn)是指純粹的、偶然的、會(huì)造成重大損失的、普遍的、未來(lái)的危險(xiǎn)。其中就可保危險(xiǎn)的未來(lái)性來(lái)說(shuō),目前在我國(guó)的保險(xiǎn)法學(xué)界,其被認(rèn)為是指可保危險(xiǎn)是屬于未來(lái)的、尚未發(fā)生的危險(xiǎn);因此就排除了已發(fā)生過(guò)的危險(xiǎn)。而且我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)理論和實(shí)務(wù)界,對(duì)于保險(xiǎn)合同的生效時(shí)間采取了“零時(shí)起保”制,即保險(xiǎn)合同的生效時(shí)間是在合同成立的次日零時(shí)或約定的未來(lái)某一日的零時(shí);而合同生效,即意味著保險(xiǎn)人具有了承擔(dān)危險(xiǎn)的義務(wù),可以說(shuō)這種理論的構(gòu)建與可保危險(xiǎn)的未來(lái)性的看法是一脈相承的。但對(duì)于在保險(xiǎn)合同訂立時(shí)就已經(jīng)發(fā)生的危險(xiǎn),是否可以因其不具有未來(lái)性、不符合可保危險(xiǎn)的特點(diǎn)而就此認(rèn)定相應(yīng)的保險(xiǎn)合同不成立或無(wú)效呢?顯然這種做法過(guò)于武斷,尤其是對(duì)于在保險(xiǎn)合同訂立時(shí)當(dāng)事人并不知道已經(jīng)發(fā)生的危險(xiǎn),將其排除出可保危險(xiǎn)的范圍之外顯然有失公允。實(shí)際上,對(duì)于這種將保險(xiǎn)人承擔(dān)危險(xiǎn)的時(shí)間回溯到保險(xiǎn)期間起點(diǎn)前的某個(gè)時(shí)間點(diǎn)開(kāi)始的保險(xiǎn),就稱之為追溯保險(xiǎn)。追溯保險(xiǎn)制度,肇始于海上貨運(yùn)保險(xiǎn),我國(guó)《海商法》第224條也有類似的規(guī)定,即:“訂立合同時(shí),被保險(xiǎn)人已經(jīng)知道或者應(yīng)當(dāng)知道保險(xiǎn)標(biāo)的已經(jīng)因發(fā)生保險(xiǎn)事故而遭受損失的,保險(xiǎn)人不負(fù)賠償責(zé)任,但是有權(quán)收取保險(xiǎn)費(fèi);保險(xiǎn)人已經(jīng)知道或者應(yīng)當(dāng)知道保險(xiǎn)標(biāo)的已經(jīng)不可能因發(fā)生保險(xiǎn)事故而遭受損失的,被保險(xiǎn)人有權(quán)收回已經(jīng)支付的保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)�！钡�,對(duì)于我國(guó)《保險(xiǎn)法》來(lái)說(shuō),針對(duì)追溯保險(xiǎn)制度則完全沒(méi)有確立任何規(guī)則。顯然,這不能充分達(dá)到人們通過(guò)保險(xiǎn)來(lái)轉(zhuǎn)移危險(xiǎn)的目的,同時(shí)也不利于我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)業(yè)的發(fā)展。日本現(xiàn)行《保險(xiǎn)法》上,針對(duì)追溯保險(xiǎn)制度,有著明確而清晰的規(guī)定。同時(shí),針對(duì)追溯保險(xiǎn),日本不僅相關(guān)學(xué)說(shuō)和理論發(fā)展成熟,在保險(xiǎn)實(shí)務(wù)方面其同樣有著相對(duì)廣泛的應(yīng)用。這些對(duì)于我國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō)都具有比較大的借鑒意義。本選題,計(jì)劃以日本的相關(guān)保險(xiǎn)法理論與保險(xiǎn)實(shí)務(wù)為中心,對(duì)比地考察中日兩國(guó)對(duì)于追溯保險(xiǎn)制度的不同理解和應(yīng)用,以期能夠清晰地把握住追溯保險(xiǎn)制度的內(nèi)涵與外延,同時(shí)理解其制度的形成脈絡(luò)和現(xiàn)實(shí)意義,進(jìn)而給我國(guó)的相關(guān)立法、法律解釋和實(shí)務(wù)應(yīng)用帶來(lái)實(shí)際意義的啟示。
[Abstract]:The so-called "no danger without insurance", the objective existence of danger not only become the premise of the emergence and development of insurance, but also reflect the significance of insurance. So what is danger? Danger is generally regarded as the uncertain objective state of loss caused by accident or force majeure. In general, people will hate loss, and accordingly will find ways to avoid danger. At this point, insurance arises. That is to say, insurance is a kind of risk transfer mechanism specifically aimed at danger. That is, through the conclusion of the insurance contract, the policyholder transfers the loss caused by the insurance accident to the insurer. Essentially, a mechanism by which the insurer acts as an intermediary to spread danger among dangerous groups. In practice, however, not all risks can be circumvented by insurance. Those risks that can be transferred through insurance are called insurable risks. The general view is that insurable risks are pure, accidental, costly, widespread, and future risks. As far as the future of insurable danger is concerned, in the field of insurance law in our country, it is considered that insurable danger belongs to the future and has not yet occurred. Moreover, in the field of insurance theory and practice in China, the effective time of the insurance contract is "from 00:00", that is, the effective time of the insurance contract is 00:00 the day after the contract is formed or 00:00 of the agreed future day; and the contract takes effect. That is to say, the insurer has the obligation to bear the risk, so it can be said that the construction of this theory is consistent with the view of the future nature of the insurable danger. But for the danger that has already occurred at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, can it be determined that the corresponding insurance contract is not established or invalid because it does not have the future and does not accord with the characteristics of insurable risk? It is clear that this approach is too arbitrary, especially when the parties are unaware of the risk that has occurred at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, and it is manifestly unfair to exclude it from the scope of the insurable risk. In fact, this kind of insurance that traces the risk of the insurer back to a certain point before the beginning of the insurance period, is called retroactive insurance. The system of retroactive insurance began with marine cargo insurance. Article 224 of the Maritime Law of China has similar provisions, that is, "when concluding a contract, If the insured has known or should have known that the subject matter of the insurance has suffered losses as a result of the insurance accident, the insurer shall not be liable for compensation, but shall have the right to collect the insurance premium; If the insurer has known or ought to know that the subject matter of the insurance is no longer likely to suffer loss as a result of an insurance accident, the insured shall have the right to recover the premium already paid. " However, for China's Insurance Law, there are no rules for retroactive insurance system. Obviously, this can not achieve the goal of people transferring danger through insurance, and it is also unfavorable to the development of insurance industry in China. In Japan's current Insurance Law, there are clear and clear regulations on retroactive insurance system. At the same time, for traceability insurance, Japan not only has a mature theory and theory, but also has a relatively wide application in insurance practice. All these are of great significance to our country. This topic, taking the relevant insurance law theory and insurance practice of Japan as the center, compares the different understanding and application of the traceability insurance system between China and Japan, in order to clearly grasp the connotation and extension of the traceability insurance system. At the same time, to understand the formation of its system and practical significance, and then to our country's relevant legislation, legal interpretation and practical application of practical significance of inspiration.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D931.3;DD912.28

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 楊帆;;論追溯保險(xiǎn)的合法性基礎(chǔ)及構(gòu)成要件[J];上海保險(xiǎn);2011年02期

2 沙銀華;姬文娟;;日本保險(xiǎn)立法對(duì)我國(guó)的啟示[J];保險(xiǎn)研究;2008年10期

，

本文編號(hào)：2227578