保險契約為現代人重要的理財工具之一，當債務人為要保人的保險契約有累積保單價值準備金時，執行債權人得否基於收取命令對保險公司行使解約權以收取該解約金，涉及收取命令所生的收取權能內涵為何，以及債務人生存權的保障。本文先介紹日本的強制執行實務見解與日本保險法的新增保障保險契約受益人的介入權制度，再詳細檢討收取權的行使範圍與界限，在我國未有如同日本法上保障受益人的介入權制度前，本文認為在執行實務上，應慎重以比例原則檢視以收取權解除保險契約是否有違債務人生存權之保障，同時為避免解除保險契約造成債務人不可復的損失，可透過執行契約約定，由第三人代償相當於保險契約解除後的解約金額，以換取執行債權人同意不強制執行該解約金債權。最末，為避免債務人藉由變更要保人的方式間接處分保單價值準備金，本文認為變更要保人的行為應構成隱匿處分財產之管收事由。

Insurance contract is one of the most important financial tools for modern people, and when the debtor for insurance contract an insurer had accumulated policy value when reserve, whether the execution creditor must exercise the right of rescission based on charging orders to insurance companies to charge the termination payments, which involve the payment of order charging power meaning why and how the protection of the debtor's right exist. This paper first introduced the Japanese practice views of forced executive and Japanese insurance Law of added guarantees insurance contract beneficiaries of intervention right system, then, detailed review charged right of exercise range and boundaries, in China not has like Japan method guarantees beneficiaries of intervention right system, paper think in practice, should view carefully in proportions principles to charged right which rescind insurance contract and further to see whether it has contrary to debtor survival right of guarantees, while for avoiding the rescind insurance contract caused debtor irreversible loss, it can through execution contract, to arrange a third person to provide compensatory amount equivalent to termination of the insurance contract in exchange for the execution creditor agreed not to enforce the termination of payment claims. Lastly, in order to avoid indirect disposition of the debtor and the policy value reserve by changing to the name of an insured, this paper argues that changes the insurer's name should constitute a con cealmout of property which constitute a disciplinary action.