English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 115348/146386 (79%)
Visitors : 54783161      Online Users : 22
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/156545


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/156545


    Title: 評限制對保險契約權利為強制執行之立法草案──以2024年6月預告之保險法第174條之2草案為中心
    Commentary on the Legislative Exemption from Execution of the Right of Insurance Contract－Focusing on the Draft Amendment to Article 174-2 of Insurance Act in June 2024
    Authors: 葉啓洲
    Contributors: 法學院
    Keywords: 保險契約;強制執行;解約金;保險給付;生存保障
    Insurance contract;Compulsory enforcement;Surrender value;Insurance benefit;Survival protection
    Date: 2024-11
    Issue Date: 2025-04-14 09:50:00 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 人壽保險契約解約金債權或保險金給付債權，性質均為普通金錢債權，自屬要保人之責任財產，得為強制執行之標的。執行債務人依保險契約所生權利時，固應顧及比例原則及債務人之生存保障，然而保險法修正草案第 174 條之 2 所豁免執行保險契約權利之情形，均欠缺理論基礎，嚴重偏離豁免強制執行之基本原則。且修正草案所豁免執行之金額，遠高於債務人及其同居親屬基本生活所需，有違憲法保護債權人財產權之意旨，且不符比例原則。本文認為，本條草案無增訂之必要，應予捨棄。
    The surrender value of a life insurance contract and the entitlement to insurance benefits are both categorized as ordinary monetary claims, which fall under the property of the policyholder. Furthermore, Civil Grand Chamber in the Supreme Court has ruled that the enforcement court is authorized to execute the claim of the surrender value, under the premise of consideration of the principle of proportionality and the debtor's right to a basic standard of living. However, the exemption from execution of rights under insurance contracts proposed in the draft amendment to Article 174-2 of Insurance Act lacks a theoretical basis, and the exempted amount significantly exceeds the necessities for basic living of the debtor and his/her cohabiting relatives. This draft amendment contravenes the constitutional mandate to protect the property rights of creditors and does not align with the principle of proportionality. Accordingly, this article urges that the competent authority should withdraw the draft amendment.
    Relation: 月旦法學雜誌, No.354, pp.102-117
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法學院] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML2View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback