受益人為於保險事故發生時，享有對保險人請求給付保險金之人。保險契約中對於保險受益人之指定與民法第269條所規定之第三人利益契約之規定多所類似，然兩者間尚有差異。於我國保險法，人身保險有受益人規定之適用，但於財產保險是否亦有受益人規定之適用，仍存有爭議。保險法第5條就受益人之定義加以規定，於同法第110至114條則規定受益人之確定方式。於現行保險法第45及第52條亦有就受益人之規定，此兩條文得否作為確認保險受益人之依據，實有討論之空間。臺灣高等法院100年度保險上易字第4號民事判決涉及之案件，即就相關問題為探討。本文即以此案例事實出發就前揭問題加以討論，藉以釐清相關之爭議。

The beneficiary is the person who can request the insurer to pay the insurance money when the insurance accident occurs. The insurance contract for specifying the insurance beneficiary is much similar to the contract for the third party in Article 269 of Civil Code, however there is still difference between each other. The provision of the beneficiary is applicable to the life insurance, but is it also applicable to the property insurance? Article 5 of Insurance Act of the Republic of China provides the meaning of the word-＂beneficiary＂, in addition Article 110 to 114 provide the method for determining beneficiaries. There is also the stipulation of the word-＂beneficiary＂ in Article 45 and 52. However, can these two articles be the basis to confirm the definition of insurance beneficiary? There is room for discussion. The case for Taiwan High Court Civil Judgment Bao Sian Shan Yi No. 4 (2011) also discussed the problem of Article 45 & 52 of Insurance Act. So this article will discuss problem from this fact of the case and will have some suggestion.