論對壽險解約金之強制執行－評臺灣高等法院105年度上易字第641號民事判決

執行法院是否有權執行未到期之壽險解約金債權？該問題在我國各級法院有不同看法。實際上該問題涉及債權人利益外，更涉及在民事訴訟中未顯現之受益人利益。也就是說，此乃債權人與受益人間利益衝突之衡量。近期多數司法實務採取禁止法院執行未到期之壽險解約金債權，但本文以為多數司法實務見解就民法第242條及強制執行法第115條規定之要件解釋有誤，與向來司法實務在其他民事案件中，對上述法條之解釋有所不同。多數司法實務見解之解釋結果，將產生法規衝突，並非妥適之解釋。故本文採取不同見解，認執行法院是否有權執行未到期之壽險解約金債權。

關鍵字

強制執行；扣押；人壽保險；保單價值準備金；解約金；一身專屬性權利

並列摘要

Whether the court has power to garnish cash surrender of unmatured life insurance, the question has different answers in different Taiwan courts. Actually the question involves with the conflict interest between creditor and life insurance beneficiary, who has no standing in civil suit. In another word, it's a question about how to balance the interest between the creditor and the beneficiary. Recently, Taiwan major judiciary forbade the court to garnish cash surrender of unmatured life insurance. However, this article considers that major judiciary wrongfully constructs Civil Code Art. 242 and Compulsory Enforcement Act Art. 115, compared with the construction in other civil cases. Because the major judiciary construction may attribute to conflict of laws, it's not an appropriate construction. Therefore, this article approves that the court has power to garnish cash surrender of unmatured life insurance, which is contrast to major judiciary construction.