執行法院是否有權執行未到期之壽險解約金債權？該問題在我國各級法院有不同看法。實際上該問題涉及債權人利益外，更涉及在民事訴訟中未顯現之受益人利益。也就是說，此乃債權人與受益人間利益衝突之衡量。本文除從現有我國法律規定探討該問題外，嘗試從比較法之角度探討該問題之解決方案。比較法上對於債權人與債務人間利益衝突之解決方案，皆有所不同。其解決方案之不同，與該國法制息息相關。從而執行法院是否有權執行未到期之壽險解約金債權？應從現行法解釋論與將來立法論為開展。在現行法解釋論上，本文採取人壽保險解約金可強制執行之見解。在此現行法解釋論基礎下，本文建議將來立法可仿效德國保險契約法介入權之規定，平衡債權人與受益人間利益。 Whether the court has power to garnish cash surrender of unmatured life insurance, the question has different answers in different Taiwan courts. Actually the question involves with the conflict between creditor’s interest and interest of life insurance beneficiary, which not manifested in civil suit. In another word, it’s a question about how to balance the interest between the creditor and the beneficiary. This article try to discuss the question according to Taiwan law, and to find the resolution in comparative law. There are different resolutions in different nations, and the resolution depends on its legal background. So this article submit the explanation approach and legislative proposal to answer the question. Under the current law, this article takes the view that court has power to seize or garnish cash surrender of unmatured life insurance. On that basis, this article suggests that Taiwan Parliament can follow German Insurance Act 2008 Art. 170 to enact “Eintrittsrecht”. The proposal will balance the interest between the creditor and the beneficiary.