查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 保單借款與強制執行相關法律問題之研究
- 再論人壽保險契約強制執行--兼評最高法院105年臺抗第157號民事裁定
- 人身保險要保人之何種權利得作為強制執行 之標的--兼評目前實務對保單價值 準備金、解約金強制執行之作法
- 債權人與人壽保險受益人之平衡保障--德國保險契約法上受益人介入權之借鏡
- 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
- 可受強制執行之人身保險請求權種類探討
- 人壽保險契約強制執行
- 人壽保險總保費、紅利及解約金之計算兼論資產額份之應用
- 論保單價值準備金之餘額不足墊繳保險費時之期前催告--最高法院112年度臺上字第2563號民事判決評析
- 人壽保險之變更要保人與詐害債權行為之撤銷--相關判決綜合評析
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 保單借款與強制執行相關法律問題之研究=Some Legal Issues on Insurance Policy Loan and Enforcement |
---|---|
作 者 | 卓俊雄; | 書刊名 | 保險專刊 |
卷 期 | 31:4 2015.12[民104.12] |
頁 次 | 頁365-384 |
分類號 | 587.5 |
關鍵詞 | 保單借款; 保單強制執行; 人壽保險; 保單價值準備金; 解約金; Policy loan; Enforcement of life insurance policy; Life insurance; Non-forfeiture values; Surrender value; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 按保險法第120條第1項明定「保險費付足一年以上者,要保人得以保險契約為實,向保險人借款。」然而要保人行使此權利時,究其有無與保險人創立另一法律關係(如消費借會契約),實值探究。本文認為將保單借款與該保險契約解釋於同一契約關係,而要保人行使保險借款權僅你行使保險契約上權利之一,並未與保險人成立另一法律關係。此外,在保險契約之強制執行土,應非直接對保單價值準備金為之,而你對要保人對於保險契約所得行使之各項權利為之。又對保險契約為強制執行時,是、將使保險契約之利害關係人無法藉由保險制度獲得保障。,因此,在對保險契約進行扣押時,仍須注意比例原則,避免權利之濫用。 |
英文摘要 | Article 120 section 1 of Taiwan Insurance Law regulates that if premium has been fully paid for one year or more, the proposer may obtain loans from the insurer by using the insurance contract as collateral. This is also called as policy loan. This paper criticizes that whether or not the proposer come to another loan contract with insurer. This paper also asserts that the policy loan should be considered as reduction of insurer’s contract liability but a loan for consumption. It means that proposer does not come to another loan contract with insurer. In addition, the enforcement of the insurance contract should be considered on the surrender value not on the non-forfeiture values. The paper recommends that the court makes a judgement of the enforcement of life insurance policy should be discretionary under the principle of proportionality and avoiding the abuse of rights in order to protect the beneficiaries. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。