CAJ | 학술논문

通说认为租赁、劳务等继续性合同开始履行后只能终止而不能解除。合同的解除和终止在溯及力上的区别在于，前者具有溯及既往消灭合同的效力，而后者仅向将来消灭合同。我国《合同法》将解除合同作为导致合同终止的事由之一，由此带来对合同解除有否溯及力的困惑，实务中对作为继续性合同的保险合同消灭时是应终止还是解除，以及解除从何时对何人具有溯及力等存在争议。本文分析了终止和解除的含义及保险合同终止和解除的不同效力，提出根据保险法第15条、32条、37条、49条、51条、52条和58条消灭保险合同时应该用“终止”，而根据保险法第16条和第27条消灭合同时应该用“解除”。
통설인위조임、노무등계속성합동개시리행후지능종지이불능해제。합동적해제화종지재소급력상적구별재우，전자구유소급기왕소멸합동적효력，이후자부향장래소멸합동。아국《합동법》장해제합동작위도치합동종지적사유지일，유차대래대합동해제유부소급력적곤혹，실무중대작위계속성합동적보험합동소멸시시응종지환시해제，이급해제종하시대하인구유소급력등존재쟁의。본문분석료종지화해제적함의급보험합동종지화해제적불동효력，제출근거보험법제15조、32조、37조、49조、51조、52조화58조소멸보험합동시응해용“종지”，이근거보험법제16조화제27조소멸합동시응해용“해제”。
It is generally recognized that such continuous contracts as lease and employment cannot be rescinded but terminated after commencement of their fulfillment. The difference between rescission and termination on retroactivity lies in that the former is rearward-looking whereas the latter forward-looking. The Contract Law of PRC takes rescission of contract as one of the circumstances for termination of con- tracts, which makes people puzzled about its retroactive effect. In insurance practice, there are issues on whether an insurance contract, as a continuing contract, should be terminated or rescinded as well as from when and against whom such a rescission is retroactive. This article makes a study on the meaning of ter- ruination and rescission and their different legal effects in insurance contracts. It is also suggested that, an insurance contract should be terminated under the circumstances provided in Articles 15, 32, 37 49 51 52 and 58 of the Insurance Law, but it should be rescinded under the circumstances provided in Articles 16 and 27.