@article{ART001529279},
author={조규성},
title={A Clitical Review relating to violation 'Attorney-At-Law Act' about the Claim adjuster's business conduct},
journal={DONG-A LAW REVIEW},
issn={1225-3405},
year={2011},
number={50},
pages={383-416}
TY - JOUR
AU - 조규성
TI - A Clitical Review relating to violation 'Attorney-At-Law Act' about the Claim adjuster's business conduct
JO - DONG-A LAW REVIEW
PY - 2011
VL - null
IS - 50
PB - The Institute for Legal Studies Dong-A University
SP - 383
EP - 416
SN - 1225-3405
AB - According to Attorney-At-Law Act, Article 109, “a person, not an attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money, articles, banquet or other benefits or who gives or promises to give those things to a third party, in compensation for providing or mediating legal services, such as examination, representation, arbitration, settlement, solicitation, legal consultation, making of legal documents, etc. ...(omission)..., any person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million or may be punished by both.” Meanwhile by the Act, many claim adjusters were punished.
But the claim adjuster's business conduct is guaranteed by the Insurance Business Act. The claim adjuster shall render the services falling under each of the following, ① the service of confirming the occurrence of damage, ② the service of judging whether the application of articles of incorporation and relevant Acts and regulation are appropriate, ③ the service of setting the amount of damage and amount of insurance money, ④ the service of preparing documents related to the services referred to sub-paragraphs 1 through 3, ⑤ the presentation of opinion to the relevant insurance company in connection with the performance of the services referred to sub-paragraphs 1 through 3.
Thus, I think that it is unjust punished by Attorney-At-Law Act. Due to the revision of the Insurance Business Act, the claim adjuster has been recognized the right which presentation of opinion to the relevant insurance company. To protect the rights of the claim adjuster, I think that the complement of legislation is needed.
KW - the claim adjuster;violation of Attorney-At-Law Act;the Equal rights;the Insurance Business Act;Damage evaluating.
DO -
UR -
ER -
조규성. (2011). A Clitical Review relating to violation 'Attorney-At-Law Act' about the Claim adjuster's business conduct. DONG-A LAW REVIEW, 50, 383-416.
조규성. 2011, "A Clitical Review relating to violation 'Attorney-At-Law Act' about the Claim adjuster's business conduct", DONG-A LAW REVIEW, no.50, pp.383-416.
조규성 "A Clitical Review relating to violation 'Attorney-At-Law Act' about the Claim adjuster's business conduct" DONG-A LAW REVIEW 50 pp.383-416 (2011) : 383.
조규성. A Clitical Review relating to violation 'Attorney-At-Law Act' about the Claim adjuster's business conduct. 2011; 50 : 383-416.
조규성. "A Clitical Review relating to violation 'Attorney-At-Law Act' about the Claim adjuster's business conduct" DONG-A LAW REVIEW no.50(2011) : 383-416.
조규성. A Clitical Review relating to violation 'Attorney-At-Law Act' about the Claim adjuster's business conduct. DONG-A LAW REVIEW, 50, 383-416.
조규성. A Clitical Review relating to violation 'Attorney-At-Law Act' about the Claim adjuster's business conduct. DONG-A LAW REVIEW. 2011; 50 383-416.
조규성. A Clitical Review relating to violation 'Attorney-At-Law Act' about the Claim adjuster's business conduct. 2011; 50 : 383-416.
조규성. "A Clitical Review relating to violation 'Attorney-At-Law Act' about the Claim adjuster's business conduct" DONG-A LAW REVIEW no.50(2011) : 383-416.
