本文以日本房貸壽險實務上運作為例，在分析該國房貸壽險實務運作中所產生若干法律問題後，瞭解信用提供機構與信用擔保機構（即銀行與保證人）於此保險商品中擔任要保人與受益人之必要性。其中，房貸壽險訂立目的在於增強被保險人（即債務人）之債信，雖具擔保性質（屬非典型擔保），惟本質上仍應定位屬定額保險之一為宜（非損害保險，故無損害填補原則之適用）；至於信用提供機構（如銀行）雖為房貸壽險契約之要保人與受益人，其目的在於協助被保險人清償房貸債務，故非本契約真正受惠之人。基此，有關房貸壽險要保人與受益人之權益，應加以限制，以維護被保險人之權益。最後，有關債務人清償房貸借款後，要保人（如信用提供機構）應有協助變更要保人為債務人（即被保險人）之義務。此可供我國主管機關規劃房貸壽險監理規範之用。

In this paper, we analyze the operations of Japanese mortgage life insurance and find that it is necessary for the credit institutions and credit guarantee institutions (ie. banks and guarantor) to be the policyholders and beneficiaries for collateral reasons. We consider that the main purpose of mortgage life insurance is to enhance insured's credit. Although mortgage life insurance has the nature of the guarantee, this type of insurance should be classified as fixed amount insurance but indemnity insurance. The credit institutions and credit guarantee institutions should assist the insured to settle the mortgage debt, so the real benefit of this contract should be the debtor. Hence, the rights of the credit institutions and credit guarantee institutions in mortgage life insurance should be restricted in order to secure the interests of the insured. After the debtors pay up their mortgage debts, the credit institutions have responsibility to change the policyholder to the debtor. The competent authority should set up the supervision norms of mortgage life insurance based on those rules.