我國保險法之立法體系，同時繼受大陸法系與英美法系，採要保人與被保險人得分離之立法例，要保人得不經委任，為被保險人之利益訂立保險契約，而使繳交保險費之人與保險契約利益享受之人得以分離，然而此二人之權利與義務，在兩個法系交錯運用之下，卻造成整部保險法之規定衝突不斷。由於大陸法系與英美法系屬統稱之概念，故本文從其具體代表性之德國保險契約法與英美保險法切入為主軸，先確認我國保險法採取類似德國之立法模式，以要保人為當事人，然後就為他人利益投保時之情形下，討論要保人或被保險人之繳費義務及保險金請求權、保險利益之歸屬以及受益人之指定權等問題，並於文末提出現行法架構下，要保人與被保險人相關條文解釋論上之意見。

The legislative system of Taiwan’s Insurance Act is originated from the civil law system and the common law system. The Insurance Act allows the applicant and the insured can be two separate beings. The applicant can sign an insurance contract with the insurer upon other’s interests without his authorization. As a result, the person obligated to pay the premium can be different from the one enjoying the claim benefits of the contract. Because the use of the two legal systems tangled, the conflict is inevitable when Insurance Act is applied to the right and obligation between the applicant and the insured. Since the common law system and the civil law system are general concepts, this article focuses on representative cases of German Insurance Contract Law and Anglo-American Insurance Law. I clarify Taiwan’s Insurance Act is more similar to Germany legislation in essence. They both regulate the applicant as one of the parties. Based on that, I discuss the applicant’s duty to pay premium and the insured’s right to claim benefits, the possessing of insurable interest and the right to assign beneficiary. Finally, the relevant provisions of the applicant and the insured will be interpreted under the framework of existing legislation and suggestions of proper interpretation are offered.