CAJ | 학술논문

抗辩与和解控制模式，虽可以控制被保险人的道德风险，保障保险人利益，却不免“异化”为保险人通过保险合同不当干预被保险人的手段，严重损害被保险人乃至第三人利益。而抗辩与和解义务模式，在美国保险公司具备了较为完善的法律服务团队、法官衡平裁判的环境下尚有困境，面对制度移植中的立法成本及“同质性”规则下保费的提高，对我国责任保险制度而言显然并不适合；台湾地区“保险人参与权”模式既避免了被保险人因“被代理”抗辩与和解而产生的利益冲突，开通了保险人“参与”之路径，消除“遥控”的弊端，又明确了保险人滥用参与权之后果，完全可以借鉴，并进一步做体系化的设计，形成我国责任保险人参与模式的路径。
항변여화해공제모식，수가이공제피보험인적도덕풍험，보장보험인이익，각불면“이화”위보험인통과보험합동불당간예피보험인적수단，엄중손해피보험인내지제삼인이익。이항변여화해의무모식，재미국보험공사구비료교위완선적법률복무단대、법관형평재판적배경하상유곤경，면대제도이식중적입법성본급“동질성”규칙하보비적제고，대아국책임보험제도이언현연병불괄합；태만지구“보험인삼여권”모식기피면료피보험인인“피대리”항변여화해이산생적이익충돌，개통료보험인“삼여”지로경，소제“요공”적폐단，우명학료보험인람용삼여권지후과，완전가이차감，병진일보주체계화적설계，형성아국책임보험인삼여모식적로경。
Defense and reconciliation mode cannot avoid the alienation that insurer improperly interferes insurant by insurance contract and even damage the rights of the insurant and the benefit of third party, although it could control moral risks of the insured and secure their interests. However, defense and reconciliation mode is hard to gear into our liability insurance system, due to the lawmaking cost of system transplant and the increased premium under ＂similarity＂ rule. Even for the U.S. insurance companies who had relatively - comprehensive service teams, and the fair justice from judges, the mode faces dilemma. In Taiwan, ＂insurer participation rights＂ mode solves the interests conflict of reconciliation incurred by ＂negative agency＂ defense of the insured, pioneering a way for insurer＇ s ＂participation＂. It eliminates the weakness from the ＂remote control＂, and clarifies the result from insurer＇ s abuse of participation rights. Therefore, we can draw reference from Taiwan mode and optimize it to form our own path for liabiIity insurer＇s participation.