論對價平衡在保險契約之必要性與妥適性——兼論回歸對價關係之基本認知

A Study on the Necessity and Appropriateness of Consideration Equivalence in Insurance Contracts: Furthering the Returning to Basic Comprehension in Consideration Relationship

對價平衡學說主張，保險契約中保險費與風險承擔之間存在客觀平衡關係。此概念在保險法中未有明文規定，但自提出以來，歷經三十餘年之發展，已為保險法學界與實務界所普遍認可，並廣泛運用於學說爭議與司法糾紛的解決，近年來亦有將其視為保險法基本原則之一。然而，一般契約關係並無客觀對價平衡之要求，在保險概念之基本理解中也無此特別要件，故對價平衡於保險領域之運用實有檢討之必要。在檢視目前司法實務運用與學說發展後，本文認為對價平衡概念不僅無法提升司法裁判之明確性，反而會在具體問題處理時造成歧異。再者，其概念理解上時有分歧，於基礎論述上亦有自我矛盾。由於在學理基礎上缺乏必要性與妥適性，本文主張對價平衡於保險領域之適用，應回歸一般契約法下對價關係之基本認知。

Based on the concept of consideration equivalence, it has been argued that an objective balance should exist between premiums and risk assumption in insurance contracts. While not explicitly stipulated in insurance law, such concept has gained widespread recognition and application within academia and judiciary sectors over the past three decades. It has been extensively applied to resolving academic disputes and judicial conflicts, and in recent years has been even regarded as a fundamental principle of insurance law. Nevertheless, it is neither a requirement in general contract law nor a specific prerequisite in the fundamental principles of insurance. Hence, it is necessary to scrutinize thoroughly the application in insurance sector. After examining current judicial practice and academic development, it is noted that the application of consideration equivalence failed to provide judicial clarity, resulting in inconsistencies in dealing with specific issues. Furthermore, it creates ambiguities in conceptual understanding and self-contradictory arguments. Due to lacking in necessity and appropriateness, this paper argues that the concept of consideration equivalence applied in the insurance sector shall return to the basic comprehension in consideration relationship under general contract law.